As do I. And I reject them and their views on an intellectual, logical, and emotional level.

But you can't cleanse the voter pool of views that are abhorrent to you, Mein Fuhrer.

AZhitman wrote:But you can't cleanse the voter pool of views that are abhorrent to you, Mein Fuhrer.

I'm pretty sure Isaac acknowledged the individual rights of stupid people... How can you make a jump from that to comparing him with Hitler?

I agree 100% with Isaac. Stupid people can be stupid. It doesn't mean you need to accept them or consider their viewpoints valid.

Invalidity is the very essence of debate...

Encryptshun wrote:They have just as much right to spout off derp as we do to spout off brainz.

^ That.

My point is, whether you "accept" or "reject" their POV is irrelevant. As an example, I think Howie is a pathetically uninformed derptastic voter, but all I can do is counter his vote with my ballot - I can't do a damn thing about his motivations.

AZhitman wrote:As an example, I think Howie is a pathetically uninformed derptastic voter, but all I can do is counter his vote with my ballot

Doesnt that make you feel slightly disenfranchised?

Nah. He feels the same as me, I'm sure... except the difference is that he has no clue how I vote.

This is how the Republicans lost the blacks and the Jews. It's not so much the policies that are despicable as the people proposing them.

Anywhere from 74-82% of all registered Republican voters in the US are Christian. I'd venture to say that because it took place in Florida, the percentage probably got up into the 90% + range.

The voting tally: 158 yes - 11 no. That is roughly 93% against.

Not surprising. Not in the least.

If someone has a better explanation, I'd love to hear it.

"Well, first i thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter," Ron Paul responded when being asked his view on the theory of human evolution.

I agree with this guy more and more. We have big problems in this country and we are worried about human evolution?

How one approaches the "question" of evolution can be quite indicative of how one would approach the big problems.

It can be, I agree. I suspect that the candidate wants to stay focused on the issues that are important to him and others, rather than getting side lined on a litmus test for fringe issues.

IBCoupe wrote:How one approaches the "question" of evolution can be quite indicative of how one would approach the big problems.

I think it's more indicative of the ignorance of the populace (at least the ones who are concerned about someone else's stance on the issue).

It implies superior knowledge on the part of Everyday Joe, and that's simply arrogant.

It'd be one thing if the topic of concern was same-sex marriage, or abortion rights, or social programs for the unemployed. Those are relevant and debatable. Whether RP believes in Creation or evolution isn't really germane to the discussion of whether he'd be an effective leader and uphold / defend the Constitution.

Sure it is, Greg. The kind of brain that says, "I'm convinced by the evidence supporting evolution, gathered over centuries" is not likely to be the same kind of brain that says, "I don't care; I think that birth certificate's fake. He's not an American citizen."

Either you have a mind that's capable of accepting the scientific process, or you don't. Either you have a mind that's capable of entertaining the notion that the world might not be the way that you've been led to believe it, or you don't.

Isaac, I know your heart is in the right place, but I think there are maybe more optimal analogies out there for what you're trying to articulate? I think equating religious belief with the birther movement as a generalization is a long wait for a train that don't come.

Sorry, bro.

Not religious belief: the rejection of science. The two are not mutually exclusive, and that's why I thought it was an apt comparison. You can believe God created the universe without rejecting vast swathes of modern medicine that rely upon the theory of evolution to function.

Self-moderated by self-moderator

*EDIT* I KNEW I should have quoted that, Bud. Your ninja-delete is stronger than my quote-fu!

Issac,
I am sure Rep. Paul was trying to avoid any hint or implication of neo-conservatism in his campaign before he answered the question. As in the past he is been very careful to do, by not talking in their ‘secret code.’ Sometime it tends to play into the other candidates favor. Example Rick Santorum jumping over Ron’s response to the Iranian problem. I suspect this is what is going on here.

Encryptshun wrote:*EDIT* I KNEW I should have quoted that, Bud. Your ninja-delete is stronger than my quote-fu!

Call it a case of self moderation.

Cold_Zero wrote:Issac,
I am sure Rep. Paul was trying to avoid any hint or implication of neo-conservatism in his campaign before he answered the question. As in the past he is been very careful to do, by not talking in their ‘secret code.’ Sometime it tends to play into the other candidates favor. Example Rick Santorum jumping over Ron’s response to the Iranian problem. I suspect this is what is going on here.

Oh, I'm sure. There's plenty else we can look to for Ron Paul's governance styles, so the question in his particular case was probably unimportant. But as a general rule, it isn't always.

IBCoupe wrote:Sure it is, Greg. The kind of brain that says, "I'm convinced by the evidence supporting evolution, gathered over centuries" is not likely to be the same kind of brain that says, "I don't care; I think that birth certificate's fake. He's not an American citizen."

Either you have a mind that's capable of accepting the scientific process, or you don't. Either you have a mind that's capable of entertaining the notion that the world might not be the way that you've been led to believe it, or you don't.

+1

IBCoupe wrote:Sure it is, Greg. The kind of brain that says, "I'm convinced by the evidence supporting evolution, gathered over centuries" is not likely to be the same kind of brain that says, "I don't care; I think that birth certificate's fake. He's not an American citizen."

Way off.

Actually, as an investigator and auditor, evidence and documentation are tantamount. So, you're actually making my argument for me.

Someone who has inspected and analyzed the available evidence in order to make a determination of what they choose to believe would want to see empirical proof, ergo, more than what the birthers were provided in the early 18 or so months.

The attitude towards both should be, "Show me the hard evidence." As we say in auditing, if it ain't documented, it didn't happen.

So, again I say:

AZhitman wrote:Whether RP believes in Creation or evolution isn't really germane to the discussion of whether he'd be an effective leader and uphold / defend the Constitution.

Think *real* hard about how you want to approach that one, because it's a sticky wicket. An absolute adherence to your implied position might just lead one to believe you're for the elimination of all who believe in Creation from the body of governance.

There ya go Matt - you can +1 my pretty words too.

IBCoupe wrote:Either you have a mind that's capable of entertaining the notion that the world might not be the way that you've been led to believe it, or you don't.

BTW, think about this - it works both ways. And since I know how you meant it, I'm gonna play DA and flip it over for you:

Do YOU have a mind that's capable of entertaining the notion that all that supposedly airtight science might be someday relegated to the "flat world" bucket, and the world might not be the way that your professors and peers have led you to believe?

AZhitman wrote:

IBCoupe wrote:Either you have a mind that's capable of entertaining the notion that the world might not be the way that you've been led to believe it, or you don't.

BTW, think about this - it works both ways. And since I know how you meant it, I'm gonna play DA and flip it over for you:

Do YOU have a mind that's capable of entertaining the notion that all that supposedly airtight science might be someday relegated to the "flat world" bucket, and the world might not be the way that your professors and peers have led you to believe?

+1

AZhitman wrote:

AZhitman wrote:Whether RP believes in Creation or evolution isn't really germane to the discussion of whether he'd be an effective leader and uphold / defend the Constitution.

Think *real* hard about how you want to approach that one, because it's a sticky wicket. An absolute adherence to your implied position might just lead one to believe you're for the elimination of all who believe in Creation from the body of governance.

There ya go Matt - you can +1 my pretty words too.

Ron Paul would prefer the Federal Government stay out of the private lives of citizens, above all other dogmas or doctrines. He wins a free pass. Even though Ron Paul has some crazy ideas, he might be the change we need to shake up the Executive Branch. I don't write him off because of his religious beliefs. They don't conflict with his approach to governance. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for a good number of GOP candidates.

+1 for you. I definitely agree that one shouldn't absolutely adhere to any position.

AZhitman wrote:Do YOU have a mind that's capable of entertaining the notion that all that supposedly airtight science might be someday relegated to the "flat world" bucket, and the world might not be the way that your professors and peers have led you to believe?

I'm not sure what you mean... Special Relativity isn't going anywhere.

mattblancarte wrote:Ron Paul would prefer the Federal Government stay out of the private lives of citizens, above all other dogmas or doctrines. He wins a free pass. Even though Ron Paul has some crazy ideas, he might be the change we need to shake up the Executive Branch. I don't write him off because of his religious beliefs. They don't conflict with his approach to governance. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for a good number of GOP candidates.

I pretty much agree with everything you said. I would only caution that the only reason why people think he has crazy ideas is because we have been condition to think in certain ways due to the crazy policies and actions of neo-conservatism for the last how many years. His ideas smack in the face of neo-conservatism.

AZhitman wrote:The attitude towards both should be, "Show me the hard evidence." As we say in auditing, if it ain't documented, it didn't happen.

Right.

AZhitman wrote:Think *real* hard about how you want to approach that one, because it's a sticky wicket. An absolute adherence to your implied position might just lead one to believe you're for the elimination of all who believe in Creation from the body of governance.

There ya go Matt - you can +1 my pretty words too.

I'm for the elimination of those who believe in creation at the expense of evolution; let's get that out of the way. I think the way Ron Paul or any candidate, answers that question can be very insightful into whether they'd be a good leader.

AZhitman wrote:Do YOU have a mind that's capable of entertaining the notion that all that supposedly airtight science might be someday relegated to the "flat world" bucket, and the world might not be the way that your professors and peers have led you to believe?

Yes. I almost addressed this in my first post, but I thought to myself, "Naw, they wouldn't go there because the answer would be obvious."

You find clear and convincing evidence that eliminates evolution and backs up literal creationism? I'm on board. That's how science works.

Why would someone who subscribes to the attitude of "show me the hard evidence" ever favor creationism over evolution?

I'll delete this post if it crosses the "religion topics" line.

I feel like I should reiterate: I don't care if a politician believes in creationism. That doesn't matter to me. In the event that this politician rejects evolution, I have a slight problem. In the event that they use the Bible as the source of their rejection, I have a huge problem.

IBCoupe wrote:You find clear and convincing evidence that eliminates evolution and backs up literal creationism

I feel I should point out these two are not mutually exclusive. And also there really is no evidence that refutes the theory of creation. However, that is NOT evidence to support it, either.