General discussion


Is Ron Paul locked out?

By jdclyde ·
With all the hooting and hollering for McCain and his majority wins yesterday, where does that leave the stealth campaign of Ron Paul?

Is he still hoping to get in?

Is he dropping out?

Will he run as an independent?

Looking at some of his websites, they state "Now there are two".

Paul writes to forbes.

What I would like to know from people that are involved in this campaign (you know who you are) is what is next?

Front page of the Detroit Free Press "McCain clinches GOP nod"

I cannot vote for McCain. Give me hope, someone.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

121 total posts (Page 5 of 13)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

It was THEORY in Darwin's time

by Dr Dij In reply to nice bias you have there

and that is probably the lamest reason to excuse it.

Sorry, didn't know you were a creationist. I don't pull any punches tho. Maybe it is a 'different' kind of stupid: brainwashing by religion to ignore selective evidence, such as all scientific evidence they don't agree with.

I think it's more a kind of "locked into my way of thinking" mindset, the same reason people don't see new evidence of GW. "I believed what I believed in 1970 and I'm not gonna change it now!"

The mechanics of the start of the universe are alot more specious and esoteric than evolution of animals on earth. About the only 'fossil' we have of the beginning of the cosmos is the COBE data and the large scale mapping of the universe's structure that helps us know the early matter distribution.

In fact, many cosmologists now DON'T believe in the 'BIG BANG' as the creation event. They now, as I do, think of it as likely an ongoing process where one universe like the cylinder in an engine, and is expanding thru the 'exhaust' of another universe(s) that are contracting.

Matter's subatomic structure is modified to this universe's via the inlets of Quasars in the early universe and eventually will be 'sucked out' to other fractal universes thru the black holes, the 'drains' or 'outlet valves'.

The 'dimensionless singularity point' was / is more of a contrivance to say that A) we don't know what the dimensions are/were, B) they are not measurable in dimensions that can be related to the subatomic structure of this universe.

So in basic cosmology today, there was 'something' on the other side (collapsing universe, part of a universe, etc) , that went thru a black-hole side grinder / furnace / (garbage disposall) and re-arranged the subatomic structure of the matter to create this universe.

Collapse -

A few things JD and Dr Dij,

by mjwx In reply to nice bias you have there

Science doesn't ask for your faith, it only asks for your eyes. Evolution is not a belief, its an inference. The point of science is to evaluate the evidence for yourself and make a conclusion based on it (some people "believe" evolution but they are just as uninformed as the creationists /bias against ID/creationism freely admitted).

A Theory is the second closest thing to an absolute scientific fact as you can get (absolute facts do not exist in science, the point of science and the scientific method is to continually question everything) only a scientific law is higher than a theory and there are damn few Laws in science. A Theory is an inference made from one or more observations backed up by multiple examples of evidence. A Hypothesis is an inference that is not backed up by evidence. Creationists like to confuse a Hypothesis (not backed up by evidence) with a Theory (backed up by measurable evidence, in Evolutions case its backed up by reams of evidence).

There are plenty in this world that do not accept the THEORY of evolution as fact.
The US is the only western country with this problem, Asian and European nations have no problem accepting evolution as a certainty. Education is a problem in Africa and the Mid-East but even there Evolution seems to be accepted amongst the better educated. Even the Vatican hasn't got a problem with religion existing side by side with evolution.

Collapse -

There is a difference though

by jdclyde In reply to A few things JD and Dr Di ...

you see an open hostility from evolutionists towards creationists on a regular basis.

If evolutionists are so confident in their religion of science, why do they feel the need to viciously attack people on a personal basis that disagree with them?

People are looking for answers, and anti-religious people don't have a lot of options to cling on to, do they?

Whatever lets you sleep at night, monkeyboy.

Collapse -

I understand the open hostility

by mjwx In reply to There is a difference tho ...

We have people trying to place non-science over science. Creationism isn't science because none of the experiments can replicated by another scientist (let alone get the same results) which is key to turning a hypothesis into a theory. It's kind of insulting and I don't blame scientists for getting a little indignant when someone insults their life's work in that fashion (Many "armchair" evolutionists don't have a clue, but they number in the few and they will be dealt with after the creationists). The scientists are only attacking on a personal level because that is the way they have been attacked.

People are looking for answers, and anti-religious people don't have a lot of options to cling on to, do they?
This is only true if you want to separate non-religious people from anti-religious people. The really anti-religious people number in the few and normally grow out of it. Non-religious people have plenty of answers, they're just not as pretty as the ones found in the bible. True atheism is about finding answers yourself rather than being told them. To me, its less about finding something to cling to and more about the adventure of finding out, in other words I enjoy the journey and don't worry about the destination.

Ape yesterday, Man today, what waits for me tomorrow. :)

Collapse -

non-religious vs anti-religious

by jdclyde In reply to I understand the open hos ...

A non-religious person would go through their life, without concerns of religion.

An anti-religious person would feel the need to attack religious people at each and every turn.

The good Doctor was clearly anti-religious in his intentional attack and insult upon anyone that IS religious.

I, unlike the good Doctor, am confident in who and what I am, that I don't feel the need to make personal attacks against someone based on them not thinking the same way I do.

And it is still a theory about man coming from apes, and has never been proven yet.

Some theories last a long time, and not having been proven wrong does not mean they were proven correct.

If it gives you comfort, follow your path. I think you are not going to like the evolutionary path because with the welfare mentality, humans, unlike other species (and even humans in the distant past) are no longer a part of "survival of the fittest" which IMPROVES a species. We are going down genetically, not up. Wonder if we will grow our tails back?

Collapse -

Consistently inconsistent?

by PSer In reply to non-religious vs anti-rel ...

"I don't feel the need to make personal attacks against someone based on them not thinking the same way I do."

And yet in the same breathe ...

"I think you are not going to like the evolutionary path because with the welfare mentality, humans, unlike other species (and even humans in the distant past) are no longer a part of "survival of the fittest" which IMPROVES a species."

So, your implying ALL Humans have a "welfare mentality" or just Dems/Libs.?

Sorry ? couldn't help it, me being the a$$ that I am.

Collapse -

Yes, you were/are and ***

by jdclyde In reply to non-religious vs anti-rel ...

but that is besides the point.

I am not implying anything other than that the WORLD is caught up in this same downward spiral.

It used to be if you were not strong or smart enough to earn a living, you didn't live.

Now we PAY the stupid and weak to breed like bunnies, while the successful hard working people of the world that actually contribute something to the world are having smaller and smaller families. Is it any wonder why the US is falling behind in the tech fields?

Go to a state park and you see signs "Don't feed the animals". That is because if you constantly give them handouts, they forget how to survive in the wild. We need to stop feeding the animals.

Collapse -

Just saying ....

by PSer In reply to non-religious vs anti-rel ...

Yep, consistently inconsistent! Implying the "WORLD" and somehow attaching that reasoning to the "US" falling behind in tech jobs.

I'm just saying?

BTW: It should be "an" a$$ not "and" a$$. <insert devil emoticon, because I rarely ? if ever ... use most of 'em>

Collapse -

It is liberals world wide, not Democrats

by jdclyde In reply to non-religious vs anti-rel ...

There, does that make you feel better?

Anyone that believes we should after decades and decades continue to pay people to breed, then you are being way to generous with other peoples money and need to get a grip on reality.

Should there be a short term safety net? Of course. Should there be a life of support in exchange for votes?

To many people FEEL to much and THINK to little. If you FEEL that I MUST have some kind of globalized label for stupid people, I would ask why? Does putting people into categories make you feel better? Political labels are not the problem, and as soon as you put a label on someone, they will just claim they are some new label.

I DON'T blame everything bad on Democrats. I told the Republicans to **** off when they called for donations because that political party no longer represents me or my ideals.

The Democrats of today are the communists of the 60's and the Republicans of today are the Democrats of the 60's. Everything has shifted "left", and the rest of the world has moved even FURTHER left than us.

Collapse -


by PSer In reply to Is Ron Paul locked out?

Yup, that's right ? your doomed ? doomed as doomed can be!

It was not that long ago that McCain was one of the most liberal (i.e. Hated by the GOP) republicans out there and now he is actually the Rep. presidential nominee?!?!?!?! Freaking amazing and too funny! Who's to blame? Your own party! If you guys could control the overzealous right wing religious nut jobs, corporate greed, fear mongering, WAR mongering, etc., etc., etc., the good 'ol USA would not be in the **** poor shape it is in right now (at home and abroad) because of the "blind Faith" of that particular party! I mean really, what did you think was going to happen when y'all voted for GWB ? twice even!?!?!? See what happens when you goosestep to the Kool-Aid line because that's what a "good Republican" does ? follow the party line ? no matter what! Worked out really well for you guys didn't it? Running elections and trying to control the masses with FEAR. Running elections through EVERY po-dunk church around the country on an ANTI-gay and ANTI-abortion platform (truly some of Karl Roves best work)! Tell me this, aren't y'all supposed to be about keeping the government OUT of peoples lives? Yet you are FOR controlling what a woman can and cannot do with her body!? What homosexuals can and cannot HAVE and or do, as far as the same liberties as heterosexuals have in the U.S.A. where ... "all men are created equal"!? Again, REALLY, what did you expect?!?!?

Truth is, I like Ron Paul, said as much in a few posts here. He's a good man with some great ideas (and some bad as well, he IS a politician!) and the ONLY person running as a Rep. that I have EVER considered worthy of my vote. However, he does not tow the party line so he is not even considered!? It's just f'n stupid! The Republican party just might have had a chance with Ron Paul ? if there were more open minds and closed Bibles. IMHO ?

Edit: Because I am an A$$


Back to Windows Forum
121 total posts (Page 5 of 13)   Prev   03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums