bpwallace49 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Fair enough. Just seems odd to post your opinion but not have the balls to back it up with the 'why'. Why post at all if you can't continue in the discussion when probed? Ok, last post in here for me. I'm getting way to angry on this beautiful Saturday afternoon. Brent, I think you are batshiit crazy half of the time too . . but that is part of your charm. And I will not be showing my work as to why . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 What does one's scientific beliefs have to do with politics or running a government? I would venture that a flat earther would make a lousy president, as he would be afraid to send the fleet to sea in case it fell off the planet. I'd further venture that anyone believing that all life stems from an old guy in a boat with a bunch of animals is also unfit for office. These two points may not literally apply to Ron Paul but are made in general response to your question. It is not necessary to be Einstein but it is necessary to have some clue about general knowledge, including how science works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted August 27, 2011 Author Share Posted August 27, 2011 It is not necessary to be Einstein but it is necessary to have some clue about general knowledge, including how science works. It's not like our elected officials are culled from the smartest people on the plant. If history is not rewritten, I think it will show the opposite. On your earlier post, NASA has spun up a new commercial crew program to send astronauts to the ISS. Talk about a jobs program! The primary companies chosen for this endeavor have little to no history of sending people into space, but are in swing states for the 2012 election. The US Govt. is no longer interested in helping the people/advancing technology, but in winning the next election. In my 11 years as a civil servant at NASA, I have never seen it this blatant. 12 days and counting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Haven't read through all the responses, but to those who think Ron Paul is a loon, remember that he was the only one preaching about the crisis we're in now before it happened. Read his books (his latest Liberty Defined is outstanding). He's a truly brilliant man. The problem with Paul as a candidate is that he doesn't play the game and sticks by his ideals too much, even though in his latest book he admits that things like, once you're in a war it's extremely hard to get out of it... So obviously he gets that not everything he believes in is realistic, but his fault is not conveying to the American people that many of the things he believes in are simply not possible in today's world. Normally I would shrug at a candidate "playing the game", but in Paul's case, he has a big hurdle to overcome in not being seen as a loon...I mean, hell, we have a whole new fake hijacked party based on his ideals, so it's not like his ideas of limited government and fiscal responsibility are that far out there any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 The US Govt. is Political parties are no longer interested in helping the people/advancing technology, but in winning the next election. In my 11 years as a civil servant at NASA, I have never seen it this blatant. Amended. There's no doubt about it, IMO - the one and only aim in politics now is to make the other guy look bad regardless how many people it hurts or whether the country is adversely affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) The problem with Paul as a candidate is that he doesn't play the game and sticks by his ideals too much, I have no problem with him sticking by his ideals. Sorry, there are many things that make him a nut. Paul thinks leftists are going to make Christmas vanish and doesn't accept evolution as a theory. I could go on and on on his laundry list of statements that make him sound crazy to me. I agree with quite a bit of what he says, but his beliefs are way too looney on way too many other issues to get my support for POTUS. Plain and simple. Edited August 27, 2011 by bushwacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted August 27, 2011 Author Share Posted August 27, 2011 I have no problem with him sticking by his ideals. Sorry, there are many things that make him a nut. Paul thinks leftists are going to make Christmas vanish and doesn't accept evolution as a theory. I could go on and on on his laundry list of statements that make him sound crazy to me. I agree with quite a bit of what he says, but his beliefs are way too looney on way too many other issues to get my support for POTUS. Plain and simple. Adolf Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938. I am sure each of us has done/said something that we may wish to take back, or explain better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 I have no problem with him sticking by his ideals. Sorry, there are many things that make him a nut. Paul thinks leftists are going to make Christmas vanish and doesn't accept evolution as a theory. I could go on and on on his laundry list of statements that make him sound crazy to me. I agree with quite a bit of what he says, but his beliefs are way too looney on way too many other issues to get my support for POTUS. Plain and simple. Yeah, you know I haven't been worried at all about being underemployed lately, I've really been concerned with the hard-hitting issues of evolution and the secularization of Christmas.. There's a chapter in his new book about "demagogue-ing", which pretty much explains the tail-gate to a tee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Adolf Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year in 1938. I am sure each of us has done/said something that we may wish to take back, or explain better. Time's man of the year is usually the most influential, not always the best person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Time's man of the year is usually the most influential, not always the best person. Yup, Osama Bin Laden was actually a candidate for the 2001 Man of the Year, but obviously Time went for the less-controversial choice (at the time anyway) with Giuliani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) Yeah, you know I haven't been worried at all about being underemployed lately, I've really been concerned with the hard-hitting issues of evolution and the secularization of Christmas.. I gave two examples that popped into my head, I also find his proposals for the fed, the gold standard, and his economic stances in general to be radical. I apologize on behalf of the significant amount of American voters who find him to be crazy. Edited August 27, 2011 by bushwacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 I have no problem with him sticking by his ideals. Sorry, there are many things that make him a nut. Paul thinks leftists are going to make Christmas vanish and doesn't accept evolution as a theory. I could go on and on on his laundry list of statements that make him sound crazy to me. I agree with quite a bit of what he says, but his beliefs are way too looney on way too many other issues to get my support for POTUS. Plain and simple. Someone who doesn't accept evolution as a theory is a nut? You do realzie that progress develops from asking questions, not following answers, right? I don't believe in evolution. I mean seriously, you really think humans evolved from fish The real crazys are those who bash others for asking critical questions or challenging popular accepted beliefs. I will say it again, exceptional individuals follow their own path. If popular opinion is so damn right, then why are so many things terribly wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 I don't believe in evolution. I mean seriously, you really think humans evolved from fish So your theory is...........? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Don't let that post make you question my love for you. You complete me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 So your theory is...........? I don't have one. I just know we didn't evolve from fish. I don't entirely disagree with the notion that species evolve in various ways within themselves because clearly we do. But I do disagree with the notion that all species evolved from the same thing. I'm more on the side of Plato and Aristotle. But they were probably 'crazy' too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 (edited) Don't let that post make you question my love for you. You complete me. Here's the thing... I considered voting for him in '08. There were just too many things that caused me to and and and and ... there were things that made me say and though. If you need a specific example, here's one: he supposedly wished to eliminate altogether certain departments within the federal government. Now, I'm diametrically opposed to big government, but even I know when something goes too far. Restructuring of certain departments? Sure, go for it. Complete elimination? Wacko. Edited August 27, 2011 by darin3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Here's the thing... I considered voting for him in '08. There were just too many things that caused me to and and and and ... there were things that made me say and though. If you need a specific example, here's one: he supposedly wished to eliminate altogether certain departments within the federal government. Now, I'm diametrically opposed to big government, but even I know when something goes too far. Restructuring of certain departments? Sure, go for it. Complete elimination? Wacko. I don't that example is 'nuts' but as DOG eluded to, it's probably not realistic - at least immediately or within 1 presidential term. We should all strive for an ideal human existence, there's nothing wrong with shooting for the stars. I don't blame Paul for wanting it all because we should all want that. It doesn't make him nuts though, just different and bold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Here's the thing... I considered voting for him in '08. There were just too many things that caused me to and and and and ... there were things that made me say and though. If you need a specific example, here's one: he supposedly wished to eliminate altogether certain departments within the federal government. Now, I'm diametrically opposed to big government, but even I know when something goes too far. Restructuring of certain departments? Sure, go for it. Complete elimination? Wacko. Libertarians believe the individual needs to take care of themselves. No government regulations is awesome for business but just awful for the average person. Who needs silly things like clean air and water, safe food to eat, or safe working conditions. The free market unfettered by any government oversight whatsoever would he a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Libertarians believe the individual needs to take care of themselves. No government regulations is awesome for business but just awful for the average person. Who needs silly things like clean air and water, safe food to eat, or safe working conditions. The free market unfettered by any government oversight whatsoever would he a disaster. So as a man you need the government to provide you safety and hapiness?? You only think that because big government is the only thing we know. Government does not make the man, it's the inverse that's true. The government wants us to think that we need it to survive and thrive - the government itself is not a giving tree of wealth or happiness. The whole reason why America became a country is because foreigners got fed up with their own over-powering government. Afterall, government is a business ran by men who have individual hopes and desires. Great men who understood our potential and the right to liberty founded this country and we are a long way away from their intentions. I'm confident that if we the people were able to see our potential without other men dictating how we should live and forcing us to comply and obey, then we the people would thrive exponentially in ways you could never dream of. Government is hindering our progression as a species. The government's greates asset is the reliance of the people. Without it, they have nothing. Once we realize this, we can do great things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Paul Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Libertarians believe the individual needs to take care of themselves. No government regulations is awesome for business but just awful for the average person. Who needs silly things like clean air and water, safe food to eat, or safe working conditions. The free market unfettered by any government oversight whatsoever would he a disaster. Really? This is why nothing happens except for things get worse. You think change to a federal government costing $2.3 trillion a year and that employs over 2 MILLION civilians and that passes 75,000 pages of new regulations every year would naturally go straight to eliminating the few things that a government is actually has a business doing? Really? What sound bites are you stuck on? Guess not "Hope and Change" since we got neither other than more regulations, more government and an even bigger deficit that will doom your children. Wow. Cutting government initially means forget about safe water and food or working conditions. That is AMAZING. And that is the problem we will never step up and solve because we are too scared, stupid or misinformed to turn around and go the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Nice alias smart guy. L Ron Hubbard not available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts