Ron Paul does not accept the theory of evolution

uscitizen said:
Well why did he give up the profession that he had trained long and hard for ?
Money ?
Click to expand...

Yes, he must have failed as a doctor to get into politics, just like Schwarzenegger failed as an actor, Edwards failed as a lawyer, Carter failed as a peanut farmer, Eisenhower failed as a General....

Your hackery is showing again, you may want to cover it up.
 
Beefy said:
Yes, he must have failed as a doctor to get into politics, just like Schwarzenegger failed as an actor, Edwards failed as a lawyer, Carter failed as a peanut farmer, Eisenhower failed as a General....

Your hackery is showing again, you may want to cover it up.
Click to expand...

Antibiotics work and stop working because of evolutionary theory, by the way. A doctor that refuses to prescribe antibiotics because he doesn't believe the theory is sound would certainly fail in practice.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Antibiotics work and stop working because of evolutionary theory, by the way. A doctor that refuses to prescribe antibiotics because he doesn't believe the theory is sound would certainly fail in practice.
Click to expand...

Shut up Jerk!

Ron Paul '08!
 
RStringfield said:
Of course, but many read it as being about the genesis of life. That may have been the way he took it there, the question is not even audible.

I would expect Ron to give a better answer, though. The "just a theory" (and that is all I have found on the response... don't know if there was more) is way below him.
Click to expand...

agreed. He looked like an idiot. I think he was clearly talking about abiogenesis, so to misinterpret the question, which, BTW, I didn't really hear either, he made himself look completely ignorant.

So that's that. I officially have nobody to vote for. Even if Paul is sincere and was just being honest when asked about his personal view, he should have been wise enough to STFU and dodge the question somehow or simply state that science is an ongoing process and he would leave the science to those trained to conduct and interpret said science. What a dumbass. Do I expect too much?
 
tinfoil said:
agreed. He looked like an idiot. I think he was clearly talking about abiogenesis, so to misinterpret the question, which, BTW, I didn't really hear either, he made himself look completely ignorant.

So that's that. I officially have nobody to vote for. Even if Paul is sincere and was just being honest when asked about his personal view, he should have been wise enough to STFU and dodge the question somehow or simply state that science is an ongoing process and he would leave the science to those trained to conduct and interpret said science. What a dumbass. Do I expect too much?
Click to expand...
Seriously? You'd really not vote for the guy just based on that?
I mean he really just showed that he is not that polished a politician...which I kind of take as a good thing. ;)
 
I think the reason that religious questions are not asked as much of dems as they are of repubs is that dems are less likely to try and fashion laws, and appoint people based on biblical beliefs.
 
tinfoil, he did say the science was ongoing. He should have made the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis and then given his answer. Common people understand evolution to mean abiogenesis and I am guessing he was speaking to that.
 
Socrtease said:
I think the reason that religious questions are not asked as much of dems as they are of repubs is that dems are less likely to try and fashion laws, and appoint people based on biblical beliefs.
Click to expand...

Plus everyone knows they don't give two shits about religion, except around election time. That's the actual reason, just so your misinformed ignorant ass won't be quite as stupid anymore.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Plus everyone knows they don't give two shits about religion, except around election time. That's the actual reason, just so your misinformed ignorant ass won't be quite as stupid anymore.
Click to expand...

I don't want another fundie in there. And yes, every election cycle, suddenly the godless Democrats are churchgoers and repenters, but come inauguration day, they're stuffing cigars into fat chicks and jizzing on blue dresses, but it beats the shit out of a fundie, hands down.
 
Oh I see. So you must follow them around all the time right? If you do that's called stalking... I think that's illegal the last time I checked. You know shit about what they do other wise and it's none of your business about their private life unless they want it to be. The top three democratic so-called front runners are all Christian and not for same-sex marriage.

Beefy said:
I don't want another fundie in there. And yes, every election cycle, suddenly the godless Democrats are churchgoers and repenters, but come inauguration day, they're stuffing cigars into fat chicks and jizzing on blue dresses, but it beats the shit out of a fundie, hands down.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Oh I see. So you must follow them around all the time right? If you do that's called stalking... I think that's illegal the last time I checked. You know shit about what they do other wise and it's none of your business about their private life unless they want it to be. The top three democratic so-called front runners are all Christian and not for same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean. They're pandering. Who cares if two super hot chicks get married and bust out the sybian? I sure don't and neither do they. They're just trying to galvanize support from the religious right, which is a pretty backwards group of people frankly.

Bottom line, I'd rather have a president with a penchant for edible underwear who doesn't cater to the religious right, than some moralist tardoid who thinks the world is about to end and that everything we do should be done according to the bible.

Clinton knew how to get young, rotund interns, so what?

Anyhow, I don't think you picked up the flippant sarcasm I was displaying in the previous post. We don't know each other yet, but I'm beefy, a partyless libertarian thinker who is almost never serious.

Welcome to the board. :clink:
 
Well sometimes on the internet if it's not painfully obvious it's hard to tell when someone is doing sarcasm. I've thought someone was doing sarcasm once and they were serious so now days when I do it if it's not painfully obvious I either use emoticons or indicate where the sarcasm is. But I think some of them are pandering and others aren't. Of course I'm not them so for all I know they all could be pandering. I think it's pretty pathetic that only two people out of both parties are for same-sex marriage (Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich) who don't have a shot in hell. Obama even did this southern gospel concert where he let a known homophobe spew his crap about how he used to be gay and how God magically cured him. :rolleyes: Sorry but I don't buy that crap. Thanks for the welcome.

Beefy said:
This is what I mean. They're pandering. Who cares if two super hot chicks get married and bust out the sybian? I sure don't and neither do they. They're just trying to galvanize support from the religious right, which is a pretty backwards group of people frankly.

Bottom line, I'd rather have a president with a penchant for edible underwear who doesn't cater to the religious right, than some moralist tardoid who thinks the world is about to end and that everything we do should be done according to the bible.

Clinton knew how to get young, rotund interns, so what?

Anyhow, I don't think you picked up the flippant sarcasm I was displaying in the previous post. We don't know each other yet, but I'm beefy, a partyless libertarian thinker who is almost never serious.

Welcome to the board. :clink:
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Well sometimes on the internet if it's not painfully obvious it's hard to tell when someone is doing sarcasm. I've thought someone was doing sarcasm once and they were serious so now days when I do it if it's not painfully obvious I either use emoticons or indicate where the sarcasm is. But I think some of them are pandering and others aren't. Of course I'm not them so for all I know they all could be pandering. I think it's pretty pathetic that only two people out of both parties are for same-sex marriage (Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich) who don't have a shot in hell. Obama even did this southern gospel concert where he let a known homophobe spew his crap about how he used to be gay and how God magically cured him. :rolleyes: Sorry but I don't buy that crap. Thanks for the welcome.
Click to expand...

Marriage shouldn't be the business of the Federal Government as far as I'm concerned. If two people want to get married, let them get married. Its a social contract, and it should be any business of the federal government.

Ron Paul agrees.

Ron Paul is the greatest living thing ever.

Also, regarding the "troll" thing, do you know what the context of it is? If not, its a term that is used on these boards to describe a fake poster that a real poster created for entertainment value.

Its pretty uncommon that someone such as yourself comes along and makes a lot of posts right off the clip. People tend to think its someone goofing on something, but I can see that you're not a "troll", mainly because I can see when people are using more than 1 moniker on their IP address, and also because you seem genuine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top