If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Not only did RON PAUL decline to participate in Trump's upcoming derp-a-fest; he also laid some serious smack-down   (politico.com) divider line 188
    More: Amusing, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, presidents, Buddy Roemer, Republican Party of Iowa, decline, Democrat Party  
•       •       •

7998 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2011 at 5:13 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-12-04 02:06:47 PM  

Hydra: Anyone who opposes Obama ideologically on any issue is a racist. No exceptions.

/what progressives actually believe


I've yet to see a conservative oppose Obama in any remotely ideological way.

Spicy mustard and teleprompters aren't tenets of liberalism.
 
2011-12-04 02:09:23 PM  

Kurmudgeon: Barricaded Gunman: Thanks Kurmudgeon, but we all read Inherit the Wind in high school, too.

Yeah, they made a movie too. You should still read The Bible and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others.


You should still read The Koran and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
You should still read Dianetics and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
You should still read The Book of Mormon and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
You should still read The Communist Manifesto and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
 
2011-12-04 02:13:57 PM  

The Mavrick: Can anyone here imagine a world in which a Republican is anything other than a victim?


Gee and all this time I thought it was the poor libs who had the lock on victimhood, what with their utter reliance on Identity Politics. Sure, The Donald is an Attention Whore, but do you really think it's a bad idea for a candidate to take advantage of a venue that allows them to speak to The American People, you know, when that's what Candidates are supposed to be doing in a campaign? Yet for some reason accepting the invite is being mocked. It's not claiming victimhood, it's pointing out a double standard - I never said it was unfair, and there was no "oh pity them" comments in my post, just an acknowledgement of fact: The majority of posters in the politics tabs favor democrats and so does John Stewart, so appearing on his show is seen in more favorable light than attending a debate moderated by someone who, for a while, held support among their base.

I'm sorry if you can't handle facts without throwing up a straw man and shouting "your playing a victim", that's a personal problem you should work on.
 
2011-12-04 02:16:52 PM  

The Mavrick: I've yet to see a conservative oppose Obama in any remotely ideological way.


What? Opposition to Obama is racism? Yea, who's playing victim here? Thanks for proving my point.

LordJiro: You should still read The Koran and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
You should still read Dianetics and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
You should still read The Book of Mormon and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
You should still read The Communist Manifesto and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others


I agree, what's your point? Oh right, you think anyone who might consider themselves Christian is automatically a closed minded dullard who's only following what their parents taught them and couldn't possibly reach that conclusion after much soul searching and research into other brands of faith. Gotcha.
 
2011-12-04 02:19:15 PM  

CanisNoir: I agree, what's your point? Oh right, you think anyone who might consider themselves Christian is automatically a closed minded dullard who's only following what their parents taught them and couldn't possibly reach that conclusion after much soul searching and research into other brands of faith. Gotcha.


You still only selected from the brands on the shelf. And I'll bet you didn't try them all.
 
2011-12-04 02:20:52 PM  
There it is again. "This comedian says stupid people are stupid! It's not our fault! He's just biased!"
 
2011-12-04 02:22:21 PM  
Good. Of the thousands of reasons I don't respect the GOP, "worshipping reality tv stars and elevating their level of importance" ranks pretty high up there.
 
2011-12-04 02:24:44 PM  

CanisNoir: The Mavrick: I've yet to see a conservative oppose Obama in any remotely ideological way.

What? Opposition to Obama is racism? Yea, who's playing victim here? Thanks for proving my point.

LordJiro: You should still read The Koran and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
You should still read Dianetics and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
You should still read The Book of Mormon and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others
You should still read The Communist Manifesto and decide on it's own merits instead of the misguided actions of others

I agree, what's your point? Oh right, you think anyone who might consider themselves Christian is automatically a closed minded dullard who's only following what their parents taught them and couldn't possibly reach that conclusion after much soul searching and research into other brands of faith. Gotcha.


I wasn't even replying to you. Getting defensive, eh? My post was directed to people who might think otherwise, not necessarily Kurmudgeon or yourself.
 
2011-12-04 02:26:47 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: You still only selected from the brands on the shelf. And I'll bet you didn't try them all.


Sure, I doubt I've managed to squeeze all of them in, though he's skipped over some that I have investigated, Wiccan philosophy, Satanic Bible, lots of eastern philosophy, that sort of stuff. I think it's best if people come to their own conclusions about things like that, and find it funny that people like the OP I was referring to would make that claim and then lambaste anyone who suggested that Creationism be a subject of discussion in schools. (As part of Philosophy *not* science)
 
2011-12-04 02:28:32 PM  

CorporatePerson: Good. Of the thousands of reasons I don't respect the GOP, "worshipping reality tv stars and elevating their level of importance" ranks pretty high up there.


www.barack-obama-photos.com

Would like a word with you.

LordJiro: I wasn't even replying to you. Getting defensive, eh? My post was directed to people who might think otherwise, not necessarily Kurmudgeon or yourself.


Yea, sorry 'bout that, with all the Christian Bashing threads from last night, guess me hackles are still up.
 
2011-12-04 02:31:36 PM  

CanisNoir: CorporatePerson: Good. Of the thousands of reasons I don't respect the GOP, "worshipping reality tv stars and elevating their level of importance" ranks pretty high up there.

[www.barack-obama-photos.com image 394x425]

Would like a word with you.


What was your point? I don't see any reality tv stars in that picture.

Also for a good laugh, go check out Free Republic. They're crying how the liberal media "lynched" Herman Cain and pleading "Help us Sarah Palin, you're our only hope."
 
2011-12-04 02:40:06 PM  

CorporatePerson: What was your point? I don't see any reality tv stars in that picture.


It was said that it was Oprah who catapulted Obama in the '08 primary and much credit was given to her. She's not a journalist, she's a successful Jerry Springer. I was pointing out that she's not much different than Trump and both parties have had their share of giving more importance to media stars than they should.


Also for a good laugh, go check out Free Republic. They're crying how the liberal media "lynched" Herman Cain and pleading "Help us Sarah Palin, you're our only hope."


Good lord, no thanks. I got all the laughs I needed when I read that some of Cains supporters were going to write in his name on their ballot instead of shifting support to another candidate, screaming "His campaign is just suspended, it's not over!" - Sad and funny at the same time. The good news, for me anyway, is that I just read that Cain will most likely endorse Newt before Iowa and is shifting his campaign resources over to Newt as well, which will help bolster him in that area.

I just happen to think an Obama vs. Newt race would be a fantastic one and the only people who won out in the end would be The American People.
 
2011-12-04 02:41:23 PM  

CanisNoir: It was said that it was Oprah who catapulted Obama in the '08 primary and much credit was given to her.


Some people say?
 
2011-12-04 02:50:23 PM  

mrshowrules: If that is legit, I`m withdrawing my comment and think Paul actually is an idiot and possibly mentally unstable.


When the newsletters first came out, Ron Paul and his staff admitted that he wrote them on repeated occasions, but insisted that the newsletters weren't racist and that he was being quoted out of context.

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

But 5 years later, after it became apparent that the newsletters were still racist even in context, Ron Paul insisted that they were written by an unnamed ghostwriter. But he's never been able to explain how a ghost writer would write such racist screeds for years and years without Ron Paul knowing.

Nor has he provided any sort of explanation on why he would admit to writing the newsletter if he didn't actually write it.

We're supposed to take two highly implausible claims at face value, not just in the absence of proof, but also in the absence of any sort of hypothetical scenario where it would actually make sense.

It would be like if a guy was accused of murder because he was found with the victim's blood all over him shouting and after he was heard shouting, "I'm gonna kill you, I'm gonna kill you!" But not only is he unable to present an alibi or a reasonable doubt that the murder could have been committed by someone else, but he also refuses to explain why he was covered in the victim's blood.
 
2011-12-04 02:51:19 PM  

CanisNoir: CorporatePerson: What was your point? I don't see any reality tv stars in that picture.

It was said that it was Oprah who catapulted Obama in the '08 primary and much credit was given to her. She's not a journalist, she's a successful Jerry Springer. I was pointing out that she's not much different than Trump and both parties have had their share of giving more importance to media stars than they should.

.


Has Oprah ever declared bankruptcy? Let alone of a casino.
Has Oprah ever cried to congress that other talk show hosts were getting breaks because they were Indians?
Was Oprah born with a silver spoon in her mouth?
Any evidence Oprah is a serial philander?
Has Trump ever started his own media corporation?
Has Trump ever acted in a critically acclaimed movie?

How exactly are they not much different?

/Can't believe I am defending Oprah.
 
2011-12-04 02:55:12 PM  

HoodCrowd: ...I think calling someone who passed medical school a moron is code for "I am a moron," but that is an opinion.


http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-saddest-things-people-do-to-look-s ma rt/ (new window)

The 5 Saddest Things People Do to Look Smart

#5.Brandish Academic Credentials


Now, there's an appropriate time to pull out your Ph.D. or your standardized test scores, like when you are applying for a job or a school, or picking someone up at a bar.

There are also hilariously inappropriate times, like during sex, or to prove you are the smartest person in an argument.

Now, maybe this is just me being silly, but I'm pretty sure that you show you are smart in an argument by being correct. Sure, the issue being argued might be murky and debatable, but the facts you use to back up your side can be obviously right or wrong. For example, if you claim that China is not going to stay a dominant economic power because the Chinese economy relies on a barter system where everything is paid for in chopsticks, you are obviously wrong, because we all know things are paid for in fish balls.

If people pointed out you were literally, factually wrong about China's currency, you probably would back off and be a bit embarrassed, like a normal person, but some people somehow think they can keep up the bluff by pulling out academic credentials. "You may have an encyclopedia showing that China has actual paper currency, but I have a PhD in economics! And I graduated at the top of my class!"

These people are confused about how credentials work. In the real world, we show our GPA, test scores, and degrees to get into a school or a job, and those set up the expectation that we'll do a good job or succeed in the program. But then we actually have to do the job, or the coursework. Once you have farked up and covered the $100 million genomics lab in burnt peanut butter or something, nobody is going to care about how many letters you have after your name. They are just going to assume you got them by fraud.

This is exactly the same in everyday life. No matter how many credentials you have showing you were smart in the past, if you are insisting that adamantium is an element on the periodic table or explaining that cats have six legs, you are being visibly and provably stupid in the present. Even if you can convince people you once taught Stephen Hawking everything he knows, they are just going to shake their head sadly and wonder what tragic accident took away your mental faculties since then.
 
2011-12-04 02:58:41 PM  

DarnoKonrad: If you're a libertarian, you should value personal responsibility, and if you're Ron Paul and you create a publication called "Ron Paul's Freedom Report" and it ends up publishing racist material, it's speaking in the name of Ron Paul.


One of the more amusing hypocrisy's of Paultards is their insistence that Ron Paul should be commended for taking responsibility for the text of the newsletter going out under his name because he's a leader who goes down with his ship and yadda yadda yadda, but then they insist that Ron Paul should not be held responsible for anything that went out in his newsletter. Not just for the words itself, but for the incompetence of letting the newsletter go out in the first place.

"Personal responsibility" is an utterly meaningless phrase to these people. It doesn't actually mean anything.
 
2011-12-04 03:01:51 PM  

spongeboob: CanisNoir: CorporatePerson: What was your point? I don't see any reality tv stars in that picture.

It was said that it was Oprah who catapulted Obama in the '08 primary and much credit was given to her. She's not a journalist, she's a successful Jerry Springer. I was pointing out that she's not much different than Trump and both parties have had their share of giving more importance to media stars than they should.

.

Has Oprah ever declared bankruptcy? Let alone of a casino.
Has Oprah ever cried to congress that other talk show hosts were getting breaks because they were Indians?
Was Oprah born with a silver spoon in her mouth?
Any evidence Oprah is a serial philander?
Has Trump ever started his own media corporation?
Has Trump ever acted in a critically acclaimed movie?

How exactly are they not much different?

/Can't believe I am defending Oprah.


Psh, media corporation? More like affirmative action corporation. And the producers of Beloved really wanted Trump for that role, but they gave it to Oprah because quotas. I'm not racist, though.
 
2011-12-04 03:17:40 PM  

CanisNoir: CorporatePerson: Good. Of the thousands of reasons I don't respect the GOP, "worshipping reality tv stars and elevating their level of importance" ranks pretty high up there.

[www.barack-obama-photos.com image 394x425]

Would like a word with you.

LordJiro: I wasn't even replying to you. Getting defensive, eh? My post was directed to people who might think otherwise, not necessarily Kurmudgeon or yourself.

Yea, sorry 'bout that, with all the Christian Bashing threads from last night, guess me hackles are still up.


there's a few differences between Oprah and Trump.

Oprah made her own fortune.
Trump inherited his.

Oprah came from a poor ,minority family
Trump came from a place of privilege and has lowered his stature
His father would probably be ashamed of him and his poor decision making.

Trump has filed bankruptcy four times.
Oprah hasn't

Trump is a birther
Oprah isn't
 
2011-12-04 03:20:14 PM  

The Mavrick: spongeboob: CanisNoir: CorporatePerson:

Psh, media corporation? More like affirmative action corporation. And the producers of Beloved really wanted Trump for that role, but they gave it to Oprah because quotas. I'm not racist, though.


Wait Oprah wanted to give the role in Beloved to Trump but quotas made her take it herself. Boy those stupid Liberals and their "fairness" and "quotas" just keeping white people down.
 
2011-12-04 03:23:04 PM  

CanisNoir: Gee and all this time I thought it was the poor libs who had the lock on victimhood, what with their utter reliance on Identity Politics. Sure, The Donald is an Attention Whore, but do you really think it's a bad idea for a candidate to take advantage of a venue that allows them to speak to The American People, you know,


If this were 50 (or heck, even 10) years ago, and politicians wouldn't have other opportunities to talk to their potential constituents, sure. But they have other options than to lend time and credence to someone who wasted both previously.
 
2011-12-04 03:27:18 PM  

CanisNoir: OP I was referring to would make that claim and then lambaste anyone who suggested that Creationism be a subject of discussion in schools. (As part of Philosophy *not* science)


I have never ever ever heard someone suggest that creationism should be in school as a philosophy and not as a "counterbalance to science" or to "tell all sides of the science"
 
2011-12-04 03:33:36 PM  
http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

Present scientific facts that support creationism

Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
HUCKABEE: Yes.
TANCREDO: Yes.
COX: Yes.
BROWNBACK: Yes.
PAUL: Yes.

HUNTER: Yes.
KEYES: Yes.
 
2011-12-04 03:35:20 PM  
FTA: "Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman are the only candidates to announce that they will not attend".

Actually, Cain announced he won't attend either. :D
 
2011-12-04 03:54:11 PM  

schrodinger: http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

Present scientific facts that support creationism

Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
HUCKABEE: Yes.
TANCREDO: Yes.
COX: Yes.
BROWNBACK: Yes.
PAUL: Yes.
HUNTER: Yes.
KEYES: Yes.


...and?

Look, just because you're an anti-religious douchebag doesn't mean EVERYONE has to be. Over 80% of the population of America believes in Religion. Get over it. Furthermore, were you actually interested in "science", instead of just looking for a way to be an asshole, you'd realize that the theory of evolution is bullshiat. (Yes, queue outraged screams from pre-teen Farkers who have about as much scientific training as Britney Spears.)

Here's the facts: the universe doesn't value sentient life. The universe couldn't care less if random molecules are forming hydrogen clouds or human beings. It has no reason to value one over the other. Hell, most of the universe is empty space. Every law of thermodynamics states that evolution is bullshiat. And yet, I'll guarantee that no fewer than a dozen Farkers are going to go into complete fits because the physical laws of the universe don't support their blind faith (oh, the irony) in evolution. And they won't be doing it because they have any intellectual evidence supporting their outrage. They'll be doing it for the same reason that Tsui hate the Hutu.

If you actually cared about science at all, you'd acknowledge the fact that there's no logical reason why we even exist. The very fact that we're able to question the nature of the universe around us shows that we are, in fact, different from everything else in the universe. Interestingly enough, Atheists prove their own beliefs wrong every time they launch into an emotional douche-fest against Religion. If there is no god, and we are in fact merely chemical anomalies, the Atheists are obviously defective on either a genetic or intellectual level, because the norm for the human species is a belief in god. You'll forgive me if I can't see any reason why the normal members of the species should have to go out of their way to cater to the deviant behavior of a small defective group. And don't tell me that it's for the "greater good" of the species, because we're obviously managing to survive as a species JUST FINE, considering that we recently hit seven billion members.
 
2011-12-04 04:06:16 PM  

Mavent: Every law of thermodynamics states that evolution is bullshiat.


Name a single reaction or process required for the theory of evolution to be valid that violate the law of thermodynamics. Please show your math and include your units (both of which are required to show the proof of you claim). If you can't the only bullshiat around here is what you are stating because whatever you are talking about, it isn't evolution or thermodynamics.

In other words - [citation needed]
 
2011-12-04 04:51:10 PM  
i53.tinypic.com

This image completely sums my opinion of Ron Paul.
 
2011-12-04 04:54:18 PM  

Hobodeluxe: CanisNoir: CorporatePerson: Good. Of the thousands of reasons I don't respect the GOP, "worshipping reality tv stars and elevating their level of importance" ranks pretty high up there.

[www.barack-obama-photos.com image 394x425]

Would like a word with you.

LordJiro: I wasn't even replying to you. Getting defensive, eh? My post was directed to people who might think otherwise, not necessarily Kurmudgeon or yourself.

Yea, sorry 'bout that, with all the Christian Bashing threads from last night, guess me hackles are still up.

there's a few differences between Oprah and Trump.

Oprah made her own fortune.
Trump inherited his.

Oprah came from a poor ,minority family
Trump came from a place of privilege and has lowered his stature
His father would probably be ashamed of him and his poor decision making.

Trump has filed bankruptcy four times.
Oprah hasn't

Trump is a birther
Oprah isn't


We get it, Oprah's black. Duh.
 
2011-12-04 05:27:29 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Why would RON PAUL, Champion of the Constitution, want to join a debate moderated by that Amero-lovin' Trilateralist Donald Trump? Did you know his toupee was crafted from the hair of pure and innocent white Christian children?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 617x753]


... is that for real? Paul's an AIDS conspiracy theorist?
 
2011-12-04 05:41:35 PM  

CanisNoir: I just happen to think an Obama vs. Newt race would be a fantastic one and the only people who won out in the end would be The American People.


I agree, but probably not for the same reasons...

Gingrich finally getting his fat ass handed to him in a presidential race and fading into the ignominy that his repulsive, caveman ass so richly deserves? Yeah, we'd all win.
 
2011-12-04 05:43:49 PM  

Mavent:
Look, just because you're an anti-religious douchebag doesn't mean EVERYONE has to be. Over 80% of the population of America believes in Religion. Get over it. Furthermore, were you actually interested in "science", instead of just looking for a way to be an asshole, you'd realize that the theory of evolution is bullshiat. (Yes, queue outraged screams from pre-teen Farkers who have about as much scientific training as Britney Spears.)


Good old argumentum ad populum. Not to mention a misuse of it, since a) not everyone who "believes in religion" disbelieves evolutionary theory, and b) the numbers on the actual question of humanity's evolution from an earlier species of animal, here in the US, are more like 40/20/40.


Here's the facts: the universe doesn't value sentient life. The universe couldn't care less if random molecules are forming hydrogen clouds or human beings. It has no reason to value one over the other. Hell, most of the universe is empty space. Every law of thermodynamics states that evolution is bullshiat. And yet, I'll guarantee that no fewer than a dozen Farkers are going to go into complete fits because the physical laws of the universe don't support their blind faith (oh, the irony) in evolution. And they won't be doing it because they have any intellectual evidence supporting their outrage. They'll be doing it for the same reason that Tsui hate the Hutu.

1. You should probably learn the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. While the latter is a related question, it's not the same thing.
2. The planet isn't a closed system. We have this lovely little thing you may have noticed, up in the sky, called the sun; all terrestrial life is feeding directly or indirectly on its slow heat-death. Thermodynamics will have a lot to say about life on Earth once it burns out, but that'll be awhile yet.
3. The "laws of nature," from a scientific standpoint, are only laws until we find something that breaks them- at which point they're revised or discarded. They do not dictate to the universe what is or is not possible. If an evolutionary process is observed that violates a law of thermodynamics, it's the law that gets revised; not the process.


If you actually cared about science at all, you'd acknowledge the fact that there's no logical reason why we even exist. The very fact that we're able to question the nature of the universe around us shows that we are, in fact, different from everything else in the universe.

Or at least, from everything in our small corner of it, that we've met so far.


Interestingly enough, Atheists prove their own beliefs wrong every time they launch into an emotional douche-fest against Religion. If there is no god, and we are in fact merely chemical anomalies, the Atheists are obviously defective on either a genetic or intellectual level, because the norm for the human species is a belief in god. You'll forgive me if I can't see any reason why the normal members of the species should have to go out of their way to cater to the deviant behavior of a small defective group. And don't tell me that it's for the "greater good" of the species, because we're obviously managing to survive as a species JUST FINE, considering that we recently hit seven billion members.

Most people educated in the first world have no problem with evolutionary theory, even among the religious. (Polls show a roughly 80% acceptance of evolutionary theory in France, the UK, and Japan, for instance.) Getting your panties in a Creationism wad is mainly a concern of rural American Protestants, and some Muslims. Among the many flaws in your little screed, you're consistently equivocating atheism and a belief in evolution; if you'd like to continue doing that, then in the future you should note that your pet definition of "atheist" includes most of the civilized world.
 
2011-12-04 06:34:26 PM  

Mavent: the theory of evolution is bullshiat. (Yes, queue outraged screams from pre-teen Farkers who have about as much scientific training as Britney Spears.)


Man, you are exactly the sort of person I picture when I think about RON PAUL supporters.
 
2011-12-04 06:48:54 PM  

Mavent: (Yes, queue outraged screams from pre-teen Farkers who have about as much scientific training as Britney Spears.)


You remind me of my father in law who believes he knows global warming is a fraud because he's an electrical engineer.
 
2011-12-04 07:24:37 PM  

Tomflry7: So I take it a Paris Hilton hosted debate is out of the question?


My money was on Larry, the Cable Guy.
 
2011-12-04 09:09:59 PM  

CanisNoir:
Gee and all this time I thought it was the poor libs who had the lock on victimhood,

....

I'm sorry if you can't handle facts without throwing up a straw man and shouting "your playing a victim", that's a personal problem you should work on.

 
2011-12-04 09:40:06 PM  

Mavent: schrodinger: http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

Present scientific facts that support creationism

Q: Academic freedom is threatened when questioning the theory of evolution. An Iowa State astronomer was denied tenure because of his work in intelligent design in May 2007. Censoring alternative theories--dogmatic indoctrination--has replaced scientific inquiry. Will you encourage a more open approach to the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?
HUCKABEE: Yes.
TANCREDO: Yes.
COX: Yes.
BROWNBACK: Yes.
PAUL: Yes.
HUNTER: Yes.
KEYES: Yes.

...and?

Look, just because you're an anti-religious douchebag doesn't mean EVERYONE has to be. Over 80% of the population of America believes in Religion. Get over it. Furthermore, were you actually interested in "science", instead of just looking for a way to be an asshole, you'd realize that the theory of evolution is bullshiat. (Yes, queue outraged screams from pre-teen Farkers who have about as much scientific training as Britney Spears.)

Here's the facts: the universe doesn't value sentient life. The universe couldn't care less if random molecules are forming hydrogen clouds or human beings. It has no reason to value one over the other. Hell, most of the universe is empty space. Every law of thermodynamics states that evolution is bullshiat. And yet, I'll guarantee that no fewer than a dozen Farkers are going to go into complete fits because the physical laws of the universe don't support their blind faith (oh, the irony) in evolution. And they won't be doing it because they have any intellectual evidence supporting their outrage. They'll be doing it for the same reason that Tsui hate the Hutu.

If you actually cared about science at all, you'd acknowledge the fact that there's no logical reason why we even exist. The very fact that we're able to question the nature of the universe around us shows that we are, in fact, different from everything else in the universe. Interestingly enough, Atheists prove their own beliefs wrong every time they launch into an emotional douche-fest against Religion. If there is no god, and we are in fact merely chemical anomalies, the Atheists are obviously defective on either a genetic or intellectual level, because the norm for the human species is a belief in god. You'll forgive me if I can't see any reason why the normal members of the species should have to go out of their way to cater to the deviant behavior of a small defective group. And don't tell me that it's for the "greater good" of the species, because we're obviously managing to survive as a species JUST FINE, considering that we recently hit seven billion members.


farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2011-12-04 11:37:41 PM  

Mavent: Look, just because you're an anti-religious douchebag doesn't mean EVERYONE has to be. Over 80% of the population of America believes in Religion. Get over it.


8/10 I think I have seen this angle before. So I take 2 points off. Fairly well written, I'd almost believe you were this ignorant. Good derailment though.
 
2011-12-05 02:12:45 AM  

mrshowrules: GAT_00: "Therefore our candidate Ron Paul, the champion of the Constitution, has advised he will not attend."

He was doing real good before he went full RON PAUL there.

Champion of the Constitution
The Scourge of Moldovia
The Wiener of Wischester


The hero of Canton.
 
Displayed 38 of 188 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report