Ron Paul rejects evolution!

[greymatters]

6JyvkjSKMLw

[Schneibster]

Ah! Finally one in (approximately) the right place.

The only question in my mind is, is he really that stupid, or is he just pandering?

New, watch the Paulbots come swarm around; we got a pair of 'em over on SMM&T who have spent pages of a thread on this exact subject trying to worm their way out of admitting it's a pretty stupid thing not to "believe in" evolution.

[WildCat]

You're late to the party, 29 page thread about it here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101350).

[Schneibster]

You're not very observant (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3268143&postcount=580), are you?

ETA: Page 15, you'll note. Unless that's beyond your powers of observation.

[Mister Agenda]

It's a pretty stupid thing, not to believe in evolution.

[brodski]

perhaps this thread could serve for the political aspects, and we'll keep the other for the science?

[Mister Agenda]

Good idea, Brodski. Well, not believing in evolution probably won't hurt him with Republicans, so it could be politically advantageous pandering. It's kind of disappointing, I was sure in the first Republican debate he was one of the six who did believe in evolution. Does he deny it outright (YEC) or go with 'theistically guided', or what? I apologize if that's in the video, I can't watch right now.

[Schneibster]

perhaps this thread could serve for the political aspects, and we'll keep the other for the science?Another "excellent idea" post here, brodski. Yes, please.

[Kerberos]

Good idea, Brodski. Well, not believing in evolution probably won't hurt him with Republicans, so it could be politically advantageous pandering. It's kind of disappointing, I was sure in the first Republican debate he was one of the six who did believe in evolution. Does he deny it outright (YEC) or go with 'theistically guided', or what? I apologize if that's in the video, I can't watch right now.

He's vague, but it sums up to "I personally don't believe in evolution, but the jury's still out".

[Mister Agenda]

A little wiggle room, but still disappointing. A lot of otherwise-intelligent and capable Americans, even physicians, take this stance. Compartmentalization is a powerful defense mechanism.

[Brainster]

perhaps this thread could serve for the political aspects, and we'll keep the other for the science?

The political aspects are that this will ensure that Ron Paul can never be elected. Of course, that was ensured long ago anyway.:D

[fuelair]

Ron Paul rejects evolution!




And, in further developments from our Update Team, Evolution has just announced it is ejecting Ron Paul.

[leftysergeant]

Ah! Finally one in (approximately) the right place.

The only question in my mind is, is he really that stupid, or is he just pandering?

He's a dim bulb who panders to any block of dimbulbls with an aggenda he can exploit.

[Matteo Martini]

6JyvkjSKMLw

He also says:
"It was a very inappropriate question [if evolution is "true" or not]"
and it seems that, in this video, a part has been cut.

The uncensored video is here:
V4af9Q0Fa4Q

In the deleted parts, he also says:
"it[evolution] probably does not bother me"
"it[evolution] is not the most important issue for me, to make a difference in my life to understand the exact order[..]"

I hope I got the quotes 100% right, I am not native English

[Elizabeth I]

He also says:
"It was a very inappropriate question [if evolution is "true" or not]"
and it seems that, in this video, a part has been cut.

The uncensored video is here:
V4af9Q0Fa4Q

In the deleted parts, he also says:
"it[evolution] probably does not bother me"
"it[evolution] is not the most important issue for me, to make a difference in my life to understand the exact order[..]"

I hope I got the quotes 100% right, I am not native English

Matteo, do you have some sort of personal objection to looking at the general implications that arise from specific instances? In this case, a man who, if he were to win the election, would be at the head of the world's most powerful nation, has explicitly adopted a non-scientific stance.

The next President of the U.S. may be expected to formulate policy on global warming, on medical research, on fuel and food shortages, and other critical issues for which an understanding of and respect for science will be essential. It is scary that a man seeking that office - and a man who holds a medical degree from a prestigious university - would be so dismissive of science.

[leftysergeant]

He is not much of an intellectual, and his stance on evolution is just one more proof of that. He is obviously also not that sharp a historian, or he would know that laissez-faire ecconomic policies don't generally do much to address growing ecconomic disparity between the investor class and working class, and has never, of itself, developed much of a middle class. Just what we need to fix what W has done to us, huh?

And we really need to let states decide what sort of curiculum to push when anti-intellectuals are pushing Creationism and Christian fundamentalists want to replace all existing sex-ed programs with abstitnence only programs, even though they are failing, as reflected in the rates of pregnancy and AIDS in the graduates of AO sex ed.

Ignorance kills.

[Matteo Martini]

Matteo, do you have some sort of personal objection to looking at the general implications that arise from specific instances? In this case, a man who, if he were to win the election, would be at the head of the world's most powerful nation, has explicitly adopted a non-scientific stance.
[..]

My position is quite clear.
I do not share RP`s views on evolution, same-sex marriage and many other topics (I do not share the view that people should allowed to buy/carry guns so easily).
But, I realistically find that it is impossible to find a canditate that meets all your opinions, so it all comes down to a choice, which are the real issues on which you want to select a president?
To me, non-intervention in foreign countries is the most important point, this is why I stick with Paul (not that this matters a lot, since I am not American Citizen).
If Obama comes out saying that he endorses closing US bases all around the world and cut the military spending, I will be happy to change avatar

[Matteo Martini]

Ignorance kills.

Invading Iraq kills more

[Richard Masters]

My position is quite clear.
I do not share RP`s views on evolution, same-sex marriage and many other topics (I do not share the view that people should allowed to buy/carry guns so easily).
But, I realistically find that it is impossible to find a canditate that meets all your opinions, so it all comes down to a choice, which are the real issues on which you want to select a president?
To me, non-intervention in foreign countries is the most important point, this is why I stick with Paul (not that this matters a lot, since I am not American Citizen).
If Obama comes out saying that he endorses closing US bases all around the world and cut the military spending, I will be happy to change avatar

That's generally the way I feel.

However, Obama doesn't exactly support same-sex marriage, drug legalization and smaller government, but if he changed his foreign policy and adopted one of the three issues I mentioned I might actually vote for him instead.

[NeoRicen]

That's generally the way I feel.

However, Obama doesn't exactly support same-sex marriage, drug legalization and smaller government, but if he changed his foreign policy and adopted one of the three issues I mentioned I might actually vote for him instead.

Ron Paul doesn't support same-sex marriage either...

[Richard Masters]

Ron Paul doesn't support same-sex marriage either...

Technically, he does. He doesn't support any federally sanctioned marriage, even if it is heterosexual. He believes people should be free to associate with each other as they see fit.

[Wheezebucket]

I would not vote for him based on this fact alone.

[CplFerro]

Dear greymatters,

Thank you for posting this videoclip. My respect for Mr. Paul has just increased, as he explicitly refers not to God (an "is") but to the Creator (a "does"), and implicitly rejects fundamentalist materialism.

May Providence bless the Ron Paul campaign! We need him.

Cpl Ferro

[WildCat]

He believes people should be free to associate with each other as they see fit.
Really? So if Texas had a referendum on gay marriage you think Ron Paul would vote for gay marriage?

[OneShotKi11]

Evolution has nothing to do with politics. Why would this even matter?

Arent half of the candidates religious? WOuldnt that mean that half of them wouldnt believe in Evolution because clearly being religious means you believe in a creator?
If you believe in a creator then you really cant believe in evolution.

[leftysergeant]

Evolution has nothing to do with politics. Why would this even matter?

Arent half of the candidates religious? WOuldnt that mean that half of them wouldnt believe in Evolution because clearly being religious means you believe in a creator?
If you believe in a creator then you really cant believe in evolution.

Only those on the Republican side are willing to inject their religious views into the school system, to include prayer in schools.

Nearly every Democrat I know has figured out that Jesus Christ already said what needs to be said about prayer in school, as it just about always works out in practice, and that he said "No."

[OneShotKi11]

Only those on the Republican side are willing to inject their religious views into the school system, to include prayer in schools.

Nearly every Democrat I know has figured out that Jesus Christ already said what needs to be said about prayer in school, as it just about always works out in practice, and that he said "No."

I may be wrong on this one but i believe that Ron Paul didnt say he wanted to force prayer in schools even though im pretty sure he would like that. I believe it was more along the lines of allowing individuals to pray if they wanted to in school instead of the government saying that they are not allowed to even mention God or start a prayer.

I could be wrong but im almost positive i have seen him explain his stance on this exact topic in an interview online!

[leftysergeant]

I may be wrong on this one but i believe that Ron Paul didnt say he wanted to force prayer in schools even though im pretty sure he would like that. I believe it was more along the lines of allowing individuals to pray if they wanted to in school instead of the government saying that they are not allowed to even mention God or start a prayer.


BS. He wants the schools free to establish whatever routine is convenient to them regarding prayer. This would probably include a student-led invocation at the begining of the day in a lot of places. At least that was the way it went down when I was in school. It sucked. If your turn came around and you were, in the view of your classmates, heterodox in your presentation, it could be quite traumatizing.

I will have nothing to do with a ritual that endangers the emotional well-being of non-Christian kids for no real gain in the efficiency of education. It is, in fact, a detriment because it does so abuse the non-Christian.

And guess what. There is no law in the country that prevents a Christian child from praying as Jesus instructed. Mandatory prayer actually goes counter to His instructions. The Supreme Court ruling on school prayer actually defended everyone's right to worship as they choose AND, specificly, brings the law more into line with what Jesus enjoined on His disciples. The law can't stop a Christian from praying properly, because no one would know they were doing it in the first place.

[WildCat]

Nearly every Democrat I know has figured out that Jesus Christ already said what needs to be said about prayer in school, as it just about always works out in practice, and that he said "No."
Not Illinois Democrats. The Democrat-majority Illinois House and Senate overode a governor veto (the only thing good this guy ever did) to impose a "moment of silence" on the public schools.

Fortunately, a judge put a stop to that law.

[OneShotKi11]

BS. He wants the schools free to establish whatever routine is convenient to them regarding prayer. This would probably include a student-led invocation at the begining of the day in a lot of places. At least that was the way it went down when I was in school. It sucked. If your turn came around and you were, in the view of your classmates, heterodox in your presentation, it could be quite traumatizing.

I will have nothing to do with a ritual that endangers the emotional well-being of non-Christian kids for no real gain in the efficiency of education. It is, in fact, a detriment because it does so abuse the non-Christian.

And guess what. There is no law in the country that prevents a Christian child from praying as Jesus instructed. Mandatory prayer actually goes counter to His instructions. The Supreme Court ruling on school prayer actually defended everyone's right to worship as they choose AND, specificly, brings the law more into line with what Jesus enjoined on His disciples. The law can't stop a Christian from praying properly, because no one would know they were doing it in the first place.

First off your answer or reply to me started off with B.S.! What am i to say to an individual who replies to my open to debate statements with a capital B.S.? I made the statement that this is what i believe Ron Paul said he wants based on what i remember him saying in an interview online, and your counter argument was basically, NO He DIDNT!!!! Good job with the critical thinking and trying to point out actual facts that might make me side with you on the argument. Can i use the B.S. factor from now on as well when people try to point out things i feel are incorrect. Calling B.S. would make my life so much more simple!

As for traumatizing, please dont tell me your one of those poor kids who was traumatized by any little thing that occurred in your youth. Its pathetic to see people cater to the youth of today the way they do. Do you know it is now NY state law not to correct a kids spelling when they are in 1st through 5th grade. Its called Invented spelling and if a kid were to spell the word "What" "Wut" then the teacher has to mark it as correct because when sounding out the word thats what it might sound like, and telling a kid they are wrong and correcting them as there teacher you might in turm hurt the kids feeling and or traumatize them infront of there classmates.
Do you realize that 5th graders in NY are now being graded and taught this way? I bet you had no clue, and a teacher caught telling the students that this is the incorrect spelling risks losing his/her job.

In the end im glad you were able to factually point out where Dr Paul wants to force prayer down the throats of American children. Instead of giving me an emotional response based on your own thoughts of what you like and dislike.:rolleyes: Try to remember we are talking about DR. Paul here so i could careless what you believe on the topic. Thus making your emotional outburst about what you refuse to have forced down the throats of children meaningless to me. So in the end i will once again reiterate what was originally said by me....

" I may be wrong on this one but i believe that Ron Paul didnt say he wanted to force prayer in schools even though im pretty sure he would like that. I believe it was more along the lines of allowing individuals to pray if they wanted to in school instead of the government saying that they are not allowed to even mention God or start a prayer."

P.S.
In your first paragraph you claim that DR. Paul "wants the schools free to establish whatever routine is convenient to them regarding prayer" Wouldnt that mean he is leaving the decision totally up to the schools themselves and is really not putting his hand into anything they decided having to do with religion? Wouldn't it then mean that if a case were to arise where schools decided to have group schedule pray it would be because of the schools decision to advocate this and not DR. Paul?
Please show me where Dr. Paul would have anything to do with this scenario that you are attaching him to!

The only response in defense that i have thought of that you could have would be that now that Dr. Paul as President has allowed schools to exercise there free will to pass judgment as they see fit regarding religion. That this new found freedom of choice might in turn allow schools to choose programs regarding religion that might fundamentally not be not what you think should be implyed in any school district in the nation.
You think this because of the fact that not everyone might want to have prayer shoved down there throat, and or it might be harmful to a childs psyche if this individual student did not believe in a god but was then forced to be around children who expressed there love for one openly.
YOu are then able to link this to Dr Paul because because you can now say that the only reason schools have now chosen pray was because Ron Paul gave them the choice and that if he was not president the government would have made the choice for everyone and denied the aspect of prayer in school.
But...
Was it really Dr. Pauls fault that this occurred? He only gave them the choice, Nothing more nothing less. Could you really blame Paul for your child having to pray in school or be around those infected children who do?
Or can you not live with the fact that there might be more people in favor of this then are those who would rather avoid it. In the end my friend Dr. Paul only gives you the paint Brush, then you decided what to put on the canvas!

The other alternative is that you meant to say something totally different but stated your point with the wrong choosing of words where as if this is the case, then my whole point would be void and i would have say to you to choose your words more wisely and i might not have misinterpreted your original intentions!...

[leftysergeant]

The schools have no business teaching anybody religion, other than in the context that there are other religions in this country than Christianity and that stomping on the rights of practioners of those other religions is a crime. If they want to compare and contrast the religions, I have no problem with the introduction of some of C.S. Lewwis' or John Esposito's works into the copnversation. Otherwise, the teachers should mind their own business, which does not include the indoctrination of other people's kids in superstitions.

Given the freedom to inject religion into the curriculum, in those states where the school boards are arrogant enough to think that it is their business, the establishment would probably favor the works of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Oral Roberts or Bob Jones over C. S. Lewis or Pierre Tielhard de Chardin, to the overall harm of actual education.

We don't need any more dumbing-down to advance the neocon aggenda.

[OneShotKi11]

Let me say this a little more simple since this is what im trying to get at here.....

Is Ron Paul stating that when he is president he is going to in act a policy that will force every school in the nation to Pray in unison and lead by a teacher during the day?

I already know the answer to this but you seem to be falsely stating things and then not admitting you were wrong.

(which would be another case for Richard Masters to say that people are purposely smearing Ron Paul and making false statements about him.)

Or is Ron Paul saying that as president he will give each and every school the option to choose what they would like to enforce as there policy when it comes to religion?

Please answer me this because spewing your constant reasoning for why religion shouldnt be in school is hardly what i care about right now and not on point with what i was originally trying to say.

And i must apologize with my slight debating a little left of my original topic, but for some reason i felt it fit in!

[leftysergeant]

He would basicly ignore the efforts of the fundies to run rough-shod over the rights of non-Christian students and would do nothing to prevent the teaching of superstition in the place of science.

[Undesired Walrus]

There was some rethinking in order at Ron Paul headquarters.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p297/ldl21/fsf.jpg

[Matteo Martini]

Ron Paul doesn't support same-sex marriage either...

Nice avatar ;)

BS. He wants the schools free to establish whatever routine is convenient to them regarding prayer.

Evidence?

[greymatters]

I'm surprised that the Mirage Hotel & Casino hasn't sued Ron Paul's campaign for stealing their nightclub logo (http://earthpatrolmedia.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/lasvegas_banner.jpg).

[Pardalis]

My position is quite clear.

snip

I will be happy to change avatar

Yes quite clear. Before the advent of the internet, they called them turncoats.

[MaGZ]

Dear greymatters,

Thank you for posting this videoclip. My respect for Mr. Paul has just increased, as he explicitly refers not to God (an "is") but to the Creator (a "does"), and implicitly rejects fundamentalist materialism.

May Providence bless the Ron Paul campaign! We need him.

Cpl Ferro

The secret is out. Ron Paul is a Deist.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Not Illinois Democrats. The Democrat-majority Illinois House and Senate overode a governor veto (the only thing good this guy ever did) to impose a "moment of silence" on the public schools.

Fortunately, a judge put a stop to that law.

Totally. Wait, are you saying that an Activist Judge (TM) did something that wasn't evil?!

[Richard Masters]

Really? So if Texas had a referendum on gay marriage you think Ron Paul would vote for gay marriage?

He would vote for permitting the government to enforce a mutual contract such as marriage, but he wouldn't vote to make gay marriage equal to standard marriage, because he'd rather have neither be legislated by government.

[Schneibster]

Totally. Wait, are you saying that an Activist Judge (TM) did something that wasn't evil?!Of course not. If they're conservative, they're not an Activist Judge (TM) by definition.

[Schneibster]

And if you're gonna do it, do it right: http://images.cafepress.com/product/192673002v4_240x240_Front.jpg

[Tsukasa Buddha]

He would vote for permitting the government to enforce a mutual contract such as marriage, but he wouldn't vote to make gay marriage equal to standard marriage, because he'd rather have neither be legislated by government.

I don't think that option is on the voting ballot. Normally isn't it either "Yes" or "No" for referenda?

[Richard Masters]

I don't think that option is on the voting ballot. Normally isn't it either "Yes" or "No" for referenda?

Do they often ask loaded questions in referenda?

[NeoRicen]

I don't think that option is on the voting ballot. Normally isn't it either "Yes" or "No" for referenda?

Doesn't have to be, although in Australia they almost always are.

[Matteo Martini]

And if you're gonna do it, do it right: http://images.cafepress.com/product/192673002v4_240x240_Front.jpg

I do not understand your stance.
There is a candidate who wants not to attack any other nation, take away the bases abroad, reduce the military expense, was one of the few Republicans to vote against the war, he wants to spare your money taking off the IRS and you are against him?

[NeoRicen]

I do not understand your stance.
There is a candidate who wants not to attack any other nation, take away the bases abroad, reduce the military expense, was one of the few Republicans to vote against the war, he wants to spare your money taking off the IRS and you are against him?
He's FAR from the only one against the war. If you view taxes as the government stealing money of you, you're a selfish twit. Then there's all his other terrible terrible positions that just aren't worth the one good thing about him.

[Matteo Martini]

He's FAR from the only one against the war.

I think he was the only one who voted against among the Reps.


If you view taxes as the government stealing money of you, you're a selfish twit. Then there's all his other terrible terrible positions that just aren't worth the one good thing about him.

I think taxes should be used for common good.
I can not see why America is spending 500billionUSD+ per year for self-defense.
Self-defense from whom?
Bin Laden?

[NeoRicen]

I think he was the only one who voted against among the Reps.

So? The Republicans aren't the only ones running.

I think taxes should be used for common good.
I can not see why America is spending 500billionUSD+ per year for self-defense.
Self-defense from whom?
Bin Laden?
You do realise Paul wouldn't even use taxes for the common good. In fact one of the few areas he'd be willing to spend it would be national defense.

[WildCat]

I think taxes should be used for common good.
So how then do you justify your support of Ron Paul? You don't seem to have a clue what he stands for.

[Mister Agenda]

I think Paul's actual position is that the government's other sources of revenue would be sufficient for it to operate at the size it was ten years ago, and that government expenditure can be trimmed to that level without eliminating all the dandy new services (?) the enormous government growth of the last ten years has bought us. He is against the income tax in particular as he believes it is on shaky constitutional (early SCOTUS decisions held it was only to be applied to the profits of corporations) ground and more of a hindrance to the economy than some other taxes. With the economic stimulus of not having our income taxes collected, economic growth could raise revenue from other sources high enough to have surplus budget to apply to social security solvency and debt service.

Perhaps he is wrong in his estimations, but he doesn't seem to be against all taxes. As far as the common good, his plan is to ensure all persons currently dependent on entitlements continue to receive them out of savings from reducing the size of our military holdings (700+ bases on foriegn soil in 130+countries) while allowing those who believe they can benefit from doing so to have the option of putting their money elsewhere. That may be radical but it isn't kicking people off the rolls and putting them on the street, either.

[Kerberos]

I think Paul's actual position is that the government's other sources of revenue would be sufficient for it to operate at the size it was ten years ago, and that government expenditure can be trimmed to that level without eliminating all the dandy new services (?) the enormous government growth of the last ten years has bought us.
Unfortunatly that's just not true.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html

He is against the income tax in particular as he believes it is on shaky constitutional (early SCOTUS decisions held it was only to be applied to the profits of corporations) ground
I don't supose you have any idea how one could possibly find the income tax on shaky constitutional ground when it is explicitly authorized by a Constitutional ammendment. Concerning these SCOTUS decisions I'd really like to a link so that I can see how they manage to interpret "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." to mean "from corporations only".

[FM21.105]

Thing is, Ron Paul is a doctor. If he doesn't understand one of the more common facts in the field of biology, then I don't think he's fit for a doctor, much less in charge of the most advanced military on Earth.

[OMGturt1es]

let's see...

good 'ol RP wants to leave states in charge of determining what is and what is not presented in science courses, and admits such in context of the possibility of science courses actually including "intelligent design", BLATENTLY IGNORING THE FIRST AMENDMENT. and now good 'ol RP publically denies evolution.

yeah, that's not a problem at all... :eye-poppi

seriously, a vote for RP is a vote for religion in the classrooms. based soley on RP's blatent disregard for the seperation of church and state, which is a fundamental concept protecting our liberties, i cannot fathom how any "l" or "L" ibertarian could possibly support RP. or maybe i can? wait, that's not nice.

[Checkmite]

I remember reading an article on Rawn Pawl's own website, which seems to explicitly indicate that the reason he wants to take away the Federal courts' jurisdiction on deciding church/state issues is so that next time a judge wants to erect a monument to Christianity outside his courthouse, or a school decides to regulate its students into being Christian (whether they want to be or not), those who disagree will have no course of appeal based on the First Amendment. Some "constitutionalist". This is nothing less than a valentine to fundamentalists who want to break down The Wall.

[fishbob]

leftysergeant said: Ignorance kills.

Matteo Martini replied: Invading Iraq kills more

I would just like to point out that invading Iraq was a fine example of ignorance in action.

Now back to your regularly scheduled political disarray.

[Matteo Martini]

So? The Republicans aren't the only ones running.


Hillary also voted for the war


You do realise Paul wouldn't even use taxes for the common good. In fact one of the few areas he'd be willing to spend it would be national defense.

He said that he wants to close all the bases all around the world

[Matteo Martini]

leftysergeant said: Ignorance kills.

Matteo Martini replied: Invading Iraq kills more

I would just like to point out that invading Iraq was a fine example of ignorance in action.


Mm..
I would like to think it was only "ignorance"

So how then do you justify your support of Ron Paul? You don't seem to have a clue what he stands for.

Close the empire the US have abroad

[Pardalis]

leftysergeant said: Ignorance kills.

Matteo Martini replied: Invading Iraq kills more

I would just like to point out that invading Iraq was a fine example of ignorance in action.

Now back to your regularly scheduled political disarray.

Touché.

Close the empire the US have abroad

This of course doesn't answer Wildcat's point at all.

Ignorance rules!

[HereticHulk]

Matteo, do you have some sort of personal objection to looking at the general implications that arise from specific instances? In this case, a man who, if he were to win the election, would be at the head of the world's most powerful nation, has explicitly adopted a non-scientific stance.

The next President of the U.S. may be expected to formulate policy on global warming, on medical research, on fuel and food shortages, and other critical issues for which an understanding of and respect for science will be essential. It is scary that a man seeking that office - and a man who holds a medical degree from a prestigious university - would be so dismissive of science.

He is not running for President of Evolutionary Science here! Who is being dismissive?

He said he doesn't subscribe to either theory. Wiggle room yes, pandering maybe.....

Considering our current President could not formulate to tie his own shoes.....I find the question a red herring, irrelevant and inappropriate considering the important issues of the day.

[Matteo Martini]

This of course doesn't answer Wildcat's point at all.

Ignorance rules!

How I understand Oliver!! :)

[Pardalis]

How I understand Oliver!! :)

You may understand Oliver, but do you understand Ron Paul?

[WildCat]

Close the empire the US have abroad
What "empire"? Which countries are we taking the gold from, so to speak?

[TriskettheKid]

Know what I find funny?

PaulBots drone on and on about Bush and the things he does, bringing up things like the wire-tapping, the Patriot Act, the US "Empire," etc, etc, etc.

Yet these PaulBots don't seem to realize that the person they love thinks we have no right to privacy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html