Which presidental canidate would you vote for?

[Irksome]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electio...commit_crimes_zionists_silence_the_opposition

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

 

[Kadayi]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electio...commit_crimes_zionists_silence_the_opposition

I guess your idea is to imply that Ron Paul is some kind of racist (bad man) with this quotathon yes? What I'm not seeing is the actual context in which any of these statements have been made? I mean the article you link to doesn't even link to an actual Source interview (not available). I mean for all I know Paul could be quoting from a report by someone else? Or he might be putting a spin on the interpretation of a public report, or any number of things? But you'd rather we just assume from a couple of random lines that he's some kind of racist yes? Like we should assume that all Muslims are Islamofascists hell bent on stealing our freedoms perhaps?

 

[Sparta]

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electio...commit_crimes_zionists_silence_the_opposition

Apparently those comments are not his own but that of a ghost-writer. Check out the link.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."

and in the last paragraph

"Anybody who reads all that (Paul) has written ? and there?s lots of it ? could see that right away.?

So there ya go. Fox News hasn't caught onto this for some reason, so i'm guessing the reason must be because they aren't his own comments.

I have to admit that even with his flaws, I'd vote for Paul if i could. But he won't win, and even if he did, most of his policy changes wouldn't get past the senate so he'd just be a paperweight in the oval office.

 

[thecompletegeek]

I think (based on my experience on various websites) that Ron Paul has extremely strong grassroots support, but I don't know how much of that translates into actual votes. I hope that he gets the GOP nomination.

In any case, though, I would vote for Kucinich (were I a US citizen); he's a nice guy, and I agree with quite a few of his ideas. Most of the candidates are (to some extent) morons, but Kucinich and Paul are (at least) principled morons.

 

[The Monkey]

I think (based on my experience on various websites) that Ron Paul has extremely strong grassroots support, but I don't know how much of that translates into actual votes. I hope that he gets the GOP nomination.

In any case, though, I would vote for Kucinich (were I a US citizen); he's a nice guy, and I agree with quite a few of his ideas. Most of the candidates are (to some extent) morons, but Kucinich and Paul are (at least) principled morons.

Are you aware that Paul and Kucinich have different opinions in almost every matter?

 

[Kadayi]

From what I can gather Fox News seem to be excluding Paul from all the debates it seems now, and he's systematically being excluded from a number of political polls as well...so much for democracy. :dozey:

 

[thecompletegeek]

Are you aware that Paul and Kucinich have different opinions in almost every matter?

Yes, but my opinions differ from my own quite frequently, so I suffer no contradiction.

Also, Kucinich has not ruled out choosing Paul as a running mate.

 

[Shakermaker]

So the results from Iowa are in:
Obama wins the Democratic vote by a landslide and Hillary gets pwnd by Edwards.
Huckabee gets the Republican vote, with Romney on second place.

 

[leib10]

Ugh. Huckabee.

 

[Polaris]

Mike Huckabee - "Chuck Norris Approved"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8&feature=related

Redneck America, f*ck yeah!

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Gogogogo Obama.

As long as that dipshit Huckabee and all his other inbred friends don't win, then I don't care whether it is obama or hilary.

 

[mortiz-Redux]

I'm worried that one of the for runners in the presidential campaign is a baptist preacher, a preacher!? The last thing we need is a religious nut.

 

[Asknoone]

The likes of Chuck Norris and Mike Huckabee need to fall into a black void and remain there for the rest of time.

 

[Solaris]

If Obama becomes the president I will be so ****ing happy.

 

[phantomdesign]

I have a different perspective than Obama on a variety of stuff, but he seems like an honest person. Not that this is a personality contest, but it would be nice to have someone with honorable intentions and more than half a brain. I haven't done too much research on him yet, but I'll have plenty of time before the election.

I'm hoping that Ron Paul at least makes some huge waves & muddies up the waters, which it looks like it's likely to happen. At first I thought he was absolutely nuts, until I took a closer look. What I like the most is his message of freedom, personal liberty, rights, etc, the idea hat we keep the fruits of our labor, and he's one of the first candidates I've actually believed was truly interested in making government smaller (rather than just saying he would).

Clinton, Guilani, McCain, and Huckabee I could never support. The first 3 would cause more of the same, and while I think most Bush bashing is unfounded, this country needs someone with integrity. None of those 3 have any integrity, McCain and Clinton will do anything for a vote and Gulliani? Well, like he's any different.

Huckabee is borderline using God's name in vain, with the way he's running the campaign & I get a really bad vibe, like I've gotten from other bad preachers, it's hard to explain.

I don't really know much about the rest of the candidates.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

If Obama becomes the president I will be so ****ing happy.

Me too. I agree with him on everything except his stance on the death penalty.

 

[CptStern]

Kennedy was widely admired ..but during his reign he sent mercenaries to incite a civil war in cuba (couldnt send US military as that would be a declaration of war) ..his adminstration was involved with the assassination of world leaders: Patrice Lumumba and Rafael Trujillo. State sanctioned assassination of world leaders is against international law and has since been banned by the US (which incidentily was passed by Gerald Ford after revelations of several attempts on Castro and other central and south american leaders hit the media) ..during kennedy's tenure as president the CIA were involved in a coup in iraq providing weapons, intelligence and a list of supposed communist sympathisers and lefists who the new ruler of Iraq hunted down and killed ..most were civilians

the point is that no matter how charismatic or well liked or seemingly benevolent a president may be US foreign policy remains virtually unchanged - regardless of who's holding the reins of power

I have little faith foreign policy will change all that much (relative to degree of severity - neo-cons taking it to the extreme, everyone else not so much) ...not being american I have little concern over domestic issues

Obama is the best of the worst but how much does that really say?

 

[Moonraker]

its tough.

real tough.

i want to ask a question here.

first, i dont understand why anyone who doesnt believe in the theory of evolution is an uneducated idiot. why is that said so much here at evolife2.net? it is after all a theory and nothing has to be staked on it. even if you argue the hell out if it, it cant be proven. that means i dont see a consequence for believing in it or not.

second, who said Obama was African American? yea that looks great in print and description, but does something like that mean im an italian american even with other backgrounds? can we just pick one and go with that? hes obviously not black. i think id have an easier time voting for a 'true' African American than someone who likes that label.

of course this doesnt affect my pick, but its just curious to me.

 

[CptStern]

its tough.

real tough.

i want to ask a question here.

first, i dont understand why anyone who doesnt believe in the theory of evolution is an uneducated idiot. why is that said so much here at evolife2.net? it is after all a theory and nothing has to be staked on it. even if you argue the hell out if it, it cant be proven. that means i dont see a consequence for believing in it or not.

would anyone question the intelligence of an adult who still believed in santa claus or the tooth fairy? of course they would ..how is believing in creationism any different?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

its tough.

real tough.

i want to ask a question here.

first, i dont understand why anyone who doesnt believe in the theory of evolution is an uneducated idiot. why is that said so much here at evolife2.net? it is after all a theory and nothing has to be staked on it. even if you argue the hell out if it, it cant be proven. that means i dont see a consequence for believing in it or not.

Wow, the great Moonraker has disproven all those scientists with all their degrees and shit with a single paragraph. Congratz!

second, who said Obama was African American? yea that looks great in print and description, but does something like that mean im an italian american even with other backgrounds? can we just pick one and go with that? hes obviously not black. i think id have an easier time voting for a 'true' African American than someone who likes that label.

Does his race matter?

 

[.Wolf.]

Obama. just too awesome.

 

[Moonraker]

i didnt mention creationism, i asked why its important to believe in evolution.

Pig, its fine to have 'degrees and shit' theres nothing wrong with that. still that is no reason to buy into it.

Obama's race is not important, at least to me. i asked why the AA reference all the time.

 

[CptStern]

i didnt mention creationism, i asked why its important to believe in evolution.

it's generally understood that creationists dont support evolution ..if you've come up with some other explanation for the universe I for one would like to hear it

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

i didnt mention creationism, i asked why its important to believe in evolution.

Because it shows that you are educated/

Pig, its fine to have 'degrees and shit' theres nothing wrong with that. still that is no reason to buy into it.

So the fact that people with degrees have studied their areas for years and understand it far more than you or I means we shouldn't take they're word over a creationists? Even though a creationist has no evidence and a evolutionary biologist has piles?

Obama's race is not important, at least to me. i asked why the AA reference all the time.

I have no idea.

 

[Moonraker]

but i still didnt mention creationism... im not advocating it or anything.

but creationists are uneducated? thats absurd! and btw, you cannot suggest that a creationist scientist does not have education or does not have evidence to their cause. each side holds evidence that it will uphold and hold true to regardless of it contradicting the other. the only thing that makes you think otherwise is that you dont think that evidence counts, doesnt mean it isnt there. it goes both ways rather equally. this is why im always saying... who knows? sure thats an easy question if you ignore one side or the other. because one side is uneducated or brainwashed, and the other, well thats the side you are in so its just fine.

i am educated, and i know evolution, but i also know other views and theory and that each has its own set of 'evidence'. it is a mystery to me why the 'evolution' one made its way to the top, but i guess its better than having nothing. even within the 'evolution' theory there are several views and conflicts between some science. i guess there are several flavors of evolution if you will. ANYWAY, thats not what this thread is about. i was just curious as to why its important and might make one candidate... well not such a candidate because he or she does not agree with you on it. im not sure how it would effect anything. i dont hear anyone planning to ban the theory of evolution.

 

[CptStern]

but i still didnt mention creationism... im not advocating it or anything.

but creationists are uneducated? thats absurd! and btw, you cannot suggest that a creationist scientist

that's an oxymoron ..creationism isnt a science so ...no. And people who believe in creationism are just as smart as people who believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy ..interpret that as you see fit

does not have education or does not have evidence to their cause. each side holds evidence that it will uphold and hold true to regardless of it contradicting the other. the only thing that makes you think otherwise is that you dont think that evidence counts, doesnt mean it isnt there. it goes both ways rather equally. this is why im always saying... who knows?

there is zero evidence that supports creationism, not a shred that can verified in any way shape or form .. your argument is flawed

i am educated, and i know evolution, but i also know other views and theory and that each has its own set of 'evidence'. it is a mystery to me why the 'evolution' one made its way to the top, but i guess its better than having nothing. even within the 'evolution' theory there are several views and conflicts between some science. i guess there are several flavors of evolution if you will. ANYWAY, thats not what this thread is about. i was just curious as to why its important and might make one candidate... well not such a candidate because he or she does not agree with you on it. im not sure how it would effect anything. i dont hear anyone planning to ban the theory of evolution.

evolution is as much a "theory" as is gravity ...see this is the problem with creationists/anti-evolutionists: they dont understand the word "theory" and cant seem to get beyond that

read please:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

 

[Moonraker]

maybe you should do some more reading yourself. we all know gravity exists, its there, what else do you need? the theory is an explanation of gravity. you cannot prove evolution exists, its nothing like gravity, so there can be no explanation. i read till the fruit flies and realised there would be nothing int here i didnt already know.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

but creationists are uneducated? thats absurd! and btw, you cannot suggest that a creationist scientist does not have education or does not have evidence to their cause.

Yes I can. I have studied creaiontionism in depth. I know so much about flood geology it hurts. And I know what I am talking about. It has no irrefuatble evidence.

each side holds evidence that it will uphold and hold true to regardless of it contradicting the other. the only thing that makes you think otherwise is that you dont think that evidence counts, doesnt mean it isnt there.

As I said, i have studied creationism in depth.

it goes both ways rather equally. this is why im always saying... who knows? sure thats an easy question if you ignore one side or the other. because one side is uneducated or brainwashed, and the other, well thats the side you are in so its just fine.

Uneducated is the wrong word. Not adequatly educated would be better.

i am educated, and i know evolution, but i also know other views and theory and that each has its own set of 'evidence'. it is a mystery to me why the 'evolution' one made its way to the top, but i guess its better than having nothing. even within the 'evolution' theory there are several views and conflicts between some science.

Such as? A lot of people say that, but then never provide anything. I am waiting eargly for the holes in evolution.

i guess there are several flavors of evolution if you will. ANYWAY, thats not what this thread is about. i was just curious as to why its important and might make one candidate... well not such a candidate because he or she does not agree with you on it. im not sure how it would effect anything. i dont hear anyone planning to ban the theory of evolution.

Huckabee wants creationism taught alongside evolution.

If creationism had any irrefutable evidence, I'd be happy to have it taught. But the "showing two sides" arguement is bullshit. How is christian creationism anymore or less credible than say, Islam creaiontism, or Mayan creationism?

maybe you should do some more reading yourself. we all know gravity exists, its there, what else do you need? the theory is an explanation of gravity. you cannot prove evolution exists

I stopped reading here. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Tyguy]

maybe you should do some more reading yourself. we all know gravity exists, its there, what else do you need? the theory is an explanation of gravity. you cannot prove evolution exists, its nothing like gravity, so there can be no explanation. i read till the fruit flies and realised there would be nothing int here i didnt already know.

Your existence is more than enough proof of evolution. When the earth formed, there weren't human beings...billions of years later, there are human beings. Sounds like a pretty good "theory" to me.

In response to your claim that both sides have evidence...I find it funny that the only evidence creationists use is what science hasn't proven. Your inherently saying that since science cant prove evolution, creationism is somehow valid.

Also, dont try and gain any kinds of points with saying "there would be nothing I didnt already know", thats just stupid.

 

[Solaris]

The fact is that evolution is a scientific fact. We are as certain of it as we are the earth is round.

 

[CptStern]

maybe you should do some more reading yourself. we all know gravity exists, its there, what else do you need? the theory is an explanation of gravity. you cannot prove evolution exists, its nothing like gravity, so there can be no explanation. i read till the fruit flies and realised there would be nothing int here i didnt already know.

you're wrong ...we can see evolution, therefore by YOUR logic evolution is FACT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro-evolution


you're just confused with the monkeys turning into people thing

 

[Tyguy]

moonrakers point of view:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1483755384

 

[Moonraker]

ok so when does one species change into another? ever seen it? has it ever been seen? no.

there are no common links. it hasnt been observed. why is it that it has no irrefutable facts?

its accepted as truth why? because there is a scientific consensus on it? and you talk oxymoron????

i can see that none of you can understand that, and you will continue to lol and say im 'uneducated' because i dont believe it, which in itself shows such great 'education'. i didnt know that he wanted creationism taught alongside evolution. but i dont see why not. what can it hurt (oh yea besides that you dont believe it).

education is being informed and able to make your own decisions. not being told 'THIS is the TRUTH and you WILL believe it'.




this thread has grown boring. have fun with your circle jerk.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

The fact is that evolution is a scientific fact. We are as certain of it as we are the earth is round.

Aye but there are always people who deny these things. Like these guys.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

ok so when does one species change into another? ever seen it? has it ever been seen? no.

there are no common links. it hasnt been observed. why is it that it has no irrefutable facts?

Er, because so called "evidence" for creationism can be easily refuted.

its accepted as truth why? because there is a scientific consensus on it? and you talk oxymoron????

Aye. A scientific consensoues - in a nutshell people far smarter than you or I who have studied they're fields in depth.

i can see that none of you can understand that, and you will continue to lol and say im 'uneducated' because i dont believe it, which in itself shows such great 'education'. i didnt know that he wanted creationism taught alongside evolution. but i dont see why not. what can it hurt (oh yea besides that you dont believe it).

Nice job dodging round my question. How is teaching christian creationism anymore or less better than teaching say, greek creationism. Both have the same amount of evidence. If you teach christian creationism, it is only logical to teach all sides of the arguement. Including all religious creation storys.

education is being informed and able to make your own decisions. not being told 'THIS is the TRUTH and you WILL believe it'.

this thread has grown boring. have fun with your circle jerk.

Nice get out claus.

BTW nice vid Tyguy. South Park is always funny

 

[CptStern]

ok so when does one species change into another? ever seen it? has it ever been seen? no.

there's that confusion with monkeys turning into people thing again ...please stop ..you're just furthering the notion that you havent a clue as to what you're talking about

there are no common links. it hasnt been observed. why is it that it has no irrefutable facts?

its accepted as truth why? because there is a scientific consensus on it? and you talk oxymoron????

do you understand what oxymoron is? there is no such thing as a creation scientist because creationism is NOT A SCIENCE ..they're just charlatans trying to sell snake oil

i can see that none of you can understand that, and you will continue to lol and say im 'uneducated' because i dont believe it, which in itself shows such great 'education'. i didnt know that he wanted creationism taught alongside evolution. but i dont see why not. what can it hurt (oh yea besides that you dont believe it).

sure in religion class ..he's saying in biology class ..should they teach fairy tales in science class? what would they use a evidence? the bible ..please stop

education is being informed and able to make your own decisions. not being told 'THIS is the TRUTH and you WILL believe it'.

the choice seems pretty ****ing clear to me: you either believe in nonsensical fairy tales made to frighten children or you dont

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

Check that out Moonraker. It may help you understand evolution a little more

 

[Tyguy]

ok so when does one species change into another? ever seen it? has it ever been seen? no.

its not something someone can just observe you tard....it takes millions of years for even the slightest of mutations to occur in some cases.

education is being informed and able to make your own decisions. not being told 'THIS is the TRUTH and you WILL believe it'.

So as long as I am informed, believing in santa cluase is completely valid? Nice try. Also, I rarely make a case of this but for the love of god, FIX YOUR GRAMMAR WHEN CLAIMING TO BE EDUCATED!!!!!

this thread has grown boring. have fun with your circle jerk.

is the thread boring or are you out of idiotic things to say?

 

[phantomdesign]

If you believe the creation story & half a brain, the logical conclusion is that animals do evolve & adapt. Just look at all the races of humans. Whether or not they evolve on a grand scale darwin style is still very much theory though. Evolution doesn't disprove creation.

 

[Tyguy]

Whether or not they evolve on a grand scale darwin style is still very much theory though. Evolution doesn't disprove creation.

How do you figure? You're basically saying the one thing that can prove creationism is false cant prove its false.