If he doesn't have a major stroke first

by Anonymous 12 years ago

i think he's the best candidate out of all the republicans.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I agree. He is a Republican with a lot of good Democratic ideals, which is perfect. I'm surprised that man hasn't been president yet in all these year.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I think the problem is that he's just too in-between parties for either party to nominate him...if he actually got nominated, he would get enough middle votes to win. And yeah, I'm a more liberal Republican - I agree with pretty much every one of his stances

by Anonymous 12 years ago

He's not "in between" parties, he's a libertarian. He's just defining himself as a republican so that he'll stand a decent chance.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Not saying much.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

WHY Y NO POPULAR?!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

By the way, if you haven't read his book "Liberty Defined" is really really a fantastic read.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

He doesn't even believe in evolution. I don't want another creationist in office.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Well there's the most bigoted comment of the day.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you don't believe in near facts, you're not fit for office. Sorry about the truth.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Until you learn to think for yourself, and check both sides of a story - I'm not saying I disagree with evolution, but I think there is a lot more to the argument than it being a "near fact" - you should probably keep away from polls and pointy things.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm sorry, but when there's a debate between all well-known and esteemed scientists and creationists that generally have no scientific degree, I don't have to listen to both sides of the story. Nevertheless, I have listened to both sides of the story. And scientific evidence is much more convincing that the argument that God is using the theory of evolution to test our faith.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm afraid you just proved yourself wrong, since many creationists DO have scientific degrees; and that is NOT an argument against evolution. I've never even heard that said before, but even if it was said, it's definitely not the only argument. Again, thinking for yourself and looking up facts would be GREATLY appreciated. Till you learn to do that, farewell and have a nice life :)

by Anonymous 12 years ago

That's definitely not true. The majority of creationists have absolutely no scientific knowledge except what they learned in their Christian high school. Claiming many creationists have scientific degrees shows have absolutely no knowledge in the matter. There are only a few scientists that believe in Creationism. The reason you may have been led to the outrageous belief that this is false is that the few creationists with scientific degrees are highly publicized and constantly referenced by their fellow creationists. If you don't know where a famous scientists stands on evolution, it is completely logical to assume they do indeed believe in evolution. It's not noteworthy to mention a scientists isn't an idiot ruining his study and it is therefore not generally mentioned when a scientists believes in evolution. You're right, that's not the only reason people reject scientific evidence. Another common one is that there are gaps in the fossils we've found. However, this is easily refuted. As Richard Dawkins says, fossils aren't even necessary to prove evolution. The genetic structure of animals alone and how similarities are found is enough. Creationists exist because of ignorance.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Most creationists with "scientific" degrees actually have engineering degrees.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

What does that have to do with political office? And has there ever been a president who wasn't a creationist?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Creationists generally side with all the Christian views on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. And I don't like the Christian views on these issues. Also, that's like asking someone to justify not wanting to vote for someone that failed all their high school classes. No, the issue isn't directly related, but it is a clear sign of their intelligence. Furthermore, I don't like politicians that reject science. They never seem to care about scientific issues such as climate change and pollution. And of course there's been presidents who aren't creationists. Obama is one example. Almost all Democrats believe in evolution and about 40% of Republicans do. Historically, the number of presidents that were creationists was much higher because back then the scientific evidence proving evolution wasn't established. Nowadays, if you're a creationist, you're either misled or an idiot.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I'm sorry bro, but you are so out of touch with reality. Lol. You're making TONS of exaggerations and your stats are way off. Plus you haven't defined your terms. What do you mean by "believing in evolution"? Cuz evolution technically means change over time, and I'm pretty sure Ron Paul believes in that.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you're a Creationist, you're the one that is unable to grasp reality. Go flutter away with the God that made you personally and leave everyone else alone. You know damn well what I mean by evolution. Don't give me bullshit about that. Saying evolution rather than the Theory of Evolution is common and if you're unaware of this shorthand, you haven't heard much about evolution and shouldn't be talking about it. As for my stats, they're obviously not exact since I made them up on the spot based on what I've seen, but they're not that far off. I said about 40% of Republicans believe in evolution, actual statistics say 30%. I said almost all democrats believe in evolution, statistics say 57%. So yes, that was an exaggeration, but one exaggeration doesn't equal tons of exaggerations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution Do you honestly think you're better than the decorated scientists that all support evolution? Because there's no scientists alive today that have made any significant contributions to biology, which is the field evolution is contained in. If you think they're all in some conspiracy together, you need to grow up. Time to face the real world.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never said what I believe, and this conversation has nothing to do with what I believe. And as a matter of fact, evolution is commonly used to mean lots of different things. Half the arguments about it are probably because of misunderstandings. The Theory of Evolution deals with change over time, as I mentioned. I guess what you mean is that natural selection was responsible for all speciation of life on earth, right? Those are pretty far off man. And the other exaggerations I was talking about were in your other posts, such as your original statement that evolution is a "near fact" and all your other exaggerations about the stupidity of people who don't believe in evolution. Your last paragraph was completely uncalled for and did not address anything in this conversation, it was just random insults addressing what you THINK I believe - which again, what I believe has nothing to do with this conversation.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Explain to me how I assumed you believed something. Each sentence began with a conditional, such as "if", or a question, such as "do." And the part about all credible biologists is entirely relevant. There is a reason for skill specialization. Common people should accept the words the specialists for any given fields. People should listen to people in the engineering field about engineering topics, people in the construction field about construction, and people in the biology field about biology. However, it's understandable that people would want more evidence than a word from the professionals. In the case of evolution, however, that extra evidence is supplied. Evolution is definitely meant to mean more than one thing, but in all my other posts it has been clear that I've been talking about how it relates to biology and natural selection. And perhaps it was an exaggeration to claim that everyone that is a creationist is an idiot. Perhaps a more accurate claim is that everyone that is a creationist is gullible and it certainly uneducated in science.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I never said you assumed I believed anything, my comments were just trying to steer the conversation away from my personal beliefs, since they are irrelevant. I agree with what you are saying about trusting the professionals, but the problem is that evolution is NOT just a matter of biology - biologists determine if it is possibly, but historians and archaeologists have a claim to say whether or not it actually happened, or to what degree it occurred. And I know you say all scientists believe in evolution, but that is just not the case...Yes, the majority do, but I have heard of many well-credited scientists who don't! And they claim that there are many more who are just afraid to admit their disbelief in the norm. Again, that may be the case for some creationists, but I do know of some who are well educated in science. While it may not seem like it, there is still controversy in the field - whether there should be or not.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

You're making a lot of generalizations. I wouldn't vote for you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Wait...he's making a lot of generalizations or I am?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Not you.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

I sure as hell hope you wouldn't vote for a teenager. And you simply can't have an extensive knowledge of science and biology and still be a creationist unless you're in denial.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Whether or not evolution was the cause of ALL speciation really has nothing to do with biology. It's simpy history. ANCIENT, ANCIENT history, but history nonetheless. Biology can never teach us that evolution occurred, only that it can.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Yes you can. The two are not mutually exclusive. Why do people think God could not have used science?

by Anonymous 12 years ago

If you believe God used science, you believe in intelligent design, a belief that I'm not a part of but completely respect.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

And now I will go ahead and tell you, since our debate from earlier is over - that's what i believe in, intelligent design.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Ok, do you realize we are talking about a libertarian? He may be a Christian (I don't know his religion but someone threw that thought out there) but he supports abortion and gay marriage because he believes the government's only job is to protect citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property (pursuit of happiness). He doesn't think that gay marriage should even be a political issue because why should government define marriage? Not "attacking" you, just trying to make it clear what a libertarian is :)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

@YeahIAm: I don't know if anyone told you, (I didn't read all that shit) but Ron Paul is a libertarian. Despite having "Christian views", he believes in liberties. Gays would have equal rights, abortion would remain legal, and the War on Drugs would finally end.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LIBERTARIAN FOR LIFE!

by Anonymous 12 years ago

He'd be good. I don't know about great.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Better than basically any of the other Republican candidates. They're all way to rude to talk with leaders of other countries.

by Anonymous 12 years ago

Oh God, when I read thIs, I thought you were talking about the drag queen. Then I read the comments and I thought "these are really well thought and are pretty long jokes...wait..."

by Anonymous 12 years ago