One about Ron Paul and his supporters

Post Reply New Topic

There are plenty of racists that support Obama with their vote and financially as well. Does he have to refute each and every one of them? Of course not.

Guilt by association is a disgusting tactic.

Funny that you chose to use that as a refutation of my post, given that I was arguing that the douche baggery of Ron Paul's supporters matters much less than the douche baggery of Ron Paul himself. Then I proceeded to provide evidence of the Doctor's douche baggery.

How was he supposed to know who he was?



I would have said, "Hey, Jason Mewes supports me, snootchie bootchies!"

My largest disappointment at Ron Paul's followers is not really the misogyny and idiocy in the posts I quoted (they are republicans so that is expected) The real disappointment is that they think they can get away with saying that the article is taking quotes out of context, yet they do their best to avoid actually providing the context to those quotes. Just about all these comments that you say "debunk" the article, just say "All of this is out of context BS.". So please enlighten me, take all the quotes in the article offer the context to the quotes and tell me if that actually makes Ron Paul look less like an idiot.

My response wasn't just directed at you, Vex and Fnord also expressed the same generalization.

But having an honest religious belief makes you a douchebag now? That's harsh. Hopefully you never run into my 86 year old grandmother who goes to church every sunday, she might make you some "douchebaggy" cookies.

As good at making cookies, organizing community Christmas pageants, or giving soup to the homeless your grandmother may or may not be, I would not elect her President. Especially if she had extensive education at the graduate level in fields that at least touch upon evolutionary biology and persisted with her beliefs, as only colossal self-delusion or intellectual dishonesty allows one to do that.

And, regardless, unless the cookies are gluten free they'd damage my intestinal lining.

Jeez, it's hard enough just to find someone that can run the country. He doesn't think the government should be in the business of people's sex lives, which is a great improvement for someone that is God fearing. I don't agree with everything he's about, and I'm pretty sure the only person I could agree with 100% that ran would be myself.

When the honest religious belief is douchebaggish, yes.

She probably wouldn't be my first choice either but I think she has a better head on her shoulders then a lot of these criminals we have in office. Certainly wouldn't describe her as a douchebag or dips**t in any sense. I don't need to tell you that you don't have to demonize someone you disagree with, especially someone(I'm talking about Ron here, not my grandmother) I assume you agree with on quite a few other important issues such as the the war and civil liberties.

Now that I think about it, maybe I'll write my grandmother's name in for president if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination and there are no other suitable candidates on the ballot.

As for intellectual dishonesty and colossal self-delusion, I think you're setting a pretty unrealistic standard. Is Obama intellectually dishonest by saying he's a Christian but also believing in evolution? Short of being an atheist, which there very few in American politics, you're not going to be happy with anyone. Religious beliefs are something deeply personal between yourself and your god/lack of god and shouldn't be imposed on someone unwillingly.

If anything, I think Ron's way of practicing his Christianity should be praised as a reasonable alternative to the hateful imposing views of people like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry.

Still no context provided for the quotes...

Don't expect any. That's not how most Ron Paul supporters operate. It's all about baseless accusations.

Ron Paul isn't shy about imposing his religious views of when a "soul" enters the body when it comes to the bodily autonomy of women. Obama, incidentally, didn't study any biology (or, at least, I think he didn't given that he got a law degree) and accepting "Christianity & evolution" is a hell of a lot more consistent than, say, accepting "antibiotics based on evolutionary theory + no evolution".

Regulating what labourers can come into a country has just as much an affect on the labour market as regulating what manufactured products are allowed into the Us goods market. So it totally has to do with "the free market", unless "labour markets" suddenly aren't markets anymore.

That's an issue of when you believe life begins rather than purely a religious one unless you can morally rationalize murder to yourself which, unfortunately, a lot of people do.

Well ... he is a politician, after all ...

Someone could be skeptical about evolution (since natural history not been observed) while accepting dynamic changes in carbon-based organisms. Observing mutations in micro-organisms doesn't commit you to any larger theory of how life arose and diverged into multiple species over the course of natural history.