Presidential Election: 2012

[Strittan]

First of all, not many schools strictly teach creationism (At least none that I can think of). In fact, most teach evolution only. Secondly, there are many christians who accept evolution. (Mostly Catholics)

Many perhaps, but not most of them.

Go Iceland!

What does this have to do with what our president believes? Are you suggesting that an atheist president would ban creationism from being taught?

If given enough support to do so, yes.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

*Removing the "Vote for Ron Paul" link from my signature*

He just proved he doesn't know what is true or not? How about you go research it before you just go off and think that he did say something he may have not.

Second this Atheist or not argument is stupid and really doesn't matter, what needs to be followed is the consitution and if you knew anything really about Paul instead of the bandwagon trip you're having, you'd realise that personal beliefs and freedoms are something the gov't shouldn't weigh in or pass judgement upon. Something Paul has stood for and warned the american people about and making sure that Government doesn't do this. The debate last night should show you who to really fear if you care that much. Bachman is an utter idiot and Paul not being a fear mongering war junkie like her is what will lose him the GOP among other things that doesn't fall in line with the neo-con way.

 

[Strittan]

He just proved he doesn't know what is true or not? How about you go research it before you just go off and think that he did say something he may have not.

He's obviously leaning towards creationism. I still think he's one of the best candidates though.

Besides. What difference does a link in someone's signature at a Gran Turismo based forum make anyway?

 

[Danoff]

Hey, nobody's perfect. From what I've read about his understanding of human rights, it seems to me he's reasoned himself as well as anyone ever has, and therefore his theory of how we got here is completely irrelevant. Life, Liberty, and Property exist whether we adapted for survival or were placed here. After all, who's to say he has demonstrated a failure of reasoning? Maybe he has simply demonstrated that he chooses to not ponder things that he deems unimportant, like I often do.

If he doesn't consider this subject important, that's another failure of reasoning. It's fine though, honestly. I still stand behind my earlier statement.

Doesn't matter though, as the competition is pretty grim. It's not like I'd rather have Rick Perry or Barack.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

He's obviously leaning towards creationism. I still think he's one of the best candidates though.

Besides. What difference does a link in someone's signature at a Gran Turismo based forum make anyway?

It's annoying because people do this quite often here in this nation even if you're not from this nation. They get spin or a biased story or someone explains it to them in a dire way and all of a sudden they jump on the bandwagon the big outlets preach or give. That is why this country is going down hill (has been) it is horrible that people can't think or find 10-15 minutes to study a canidate during the day, because other more mindless thinks take reign in many lives.

 

[Sam48]

Many perhaps, but not most of them.

You already answered this yourself:

And why are they religious? Because they're raised to be...

It has nothing to do with what they're taught in school. What they're taught by their parents is ultimately going to seal it for them. If raised to believe in creationism, they are also then taught to not accept evolution because the Bible told them so. And I highly doubt you'll find anyone who's gone from believing in evolution to believing in creationism because the school said so. This system will only create more people who believe in evolution.

So now tell me again why a president who beliefs in creationism is a problem.

 

[Omnis]

You have to give him a break though. He's a 70-year-old dude who has been an OB/GYN and economics nerd for his entire life. The only people that debate evolution are atheists, scientists, and internet nerds. It doesn't really concern most people. You'd be surprised. Most people don't even have a clue what the theory is. Monkeys --time--> Humans. What?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

You have to give him a break though. He's a 70-year-old dude who has been an OB/GYN and economics nerd for his entire life. The only people that debate evolution are atheists, scientists, and internet nerds. It doesn't really concern most people. You'd be surprised.

Sadly this is correct from what I've seen (not universal) people rather argue other issues rather than some person or being or something in the sky/cosmos/heaven or what have you.

 

[TankAss95]

You have to give him a break though. He's a 70-year-old dude who has been an OB/GYN and economics nerd for his entire life. The only people that debate evolution are atheists, scientists, and internet nerds. It doesn't really concern most people. You'd be surprised. Most people don't even have a clue what the theory is. Monkeys --time--> Humans. What?

Well that explains it. I don't understand, care, or accept evolution. Must be because I'm not an atheist, scientist or nerd (well, I'm a hybrid super nerd in disguise). I look at evolution the sane way.
I've never really thought about the religious views of those in power. I have friends who are either softcore atheists, agnostics, and Christians (not really had an opportunity to get along with someone who doesn't fit in that brackets yet). It's quite funny we get along amazingly well compared to what you see here on the Internet.
If someone tryed to censored my beliefs then obviously it would be a different story but I don't care otherwise.

 

[Strittan]

You already answered this yourself:

You deleted the part where I said "...and then in school they're taught that God created everything."

It has nothing to do with what they're taught in school. What they're taught by their parents is ultimately going to seal it for them. If raised to believe in creationism, they are also then taught to not accept evolution because the Bible told them so.

I seriously do not believe this is the case. If they're raised to believe in creationism but taught about evolution in school I think a good amount of them will accept what their teacher is saying. Not right away perhaps, but after a while. Parents taughts their kids to believe in Santa as well, right? Yet none of them believe in him at the age of 10. It depends on the individual I guess, but in general parents have very little to do with what one ends up believing in I'd say.

And I highly doubt you'll find anyone who's gone from believing in evolution to believing in creationism. This system will only create more people who believe in evolution.

Of course not, why would one? Evolution makes sense and creationism don't. What system?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How about we get back to topic seeing as there is a Creationism vs Evolution thread, I'd rather talk politics and exposing things that show who these people truely are and how are freedom and lives will be affected. What religion, church or non-belief they have as far as religion goes isn't really that important.

 

[Strittan]

How about we get back to topic seeing as there is a Creationism vs Evolution thread

+1 👍

Sorry that I kept going on.

 

[Omnis]

Well that explains it. I don't understand, care, or accept evolution. Must be because I'm not an atheist, scientist or nerd (well, I'm a hybrid super nerd in disguise). I look at evolution the sane way.
I've never really thought about the religious views of those in power. I have friends who are either softcore atheists, agnostics, and Christians (not really had an opportunity to get along with someone who doesn't fit in that brackets yet). It's quite funny we get along amazingly well compared to what you see here on the Internet.
If someone tryed to censored my beliefs then obviously it would be a different story but I don't care otherwise.

Yeah but I mean, go up to any senior citizen and ask them to explain to you the theory of evolution. You can even ask them what a theory is. Chances are, they won't even know. Can you really fault them?

That's why it's ridiculous to make it a political issue. If it is, then there is a problem. I guess that's Ron Paul's point.

 

[TankAss95]

Yeah but I mean, go up to any senior citizen and ask them to explain to you the theory of evolution. You can even ask them what a theory is. Chances are, they won't even know. Can you really fault them?

That's why it's ridiculous to make it a political issue. If it is, then there is a problem. I guess that's Ron Paul's point.

Spot on bro.

 

[Omnis]

Cenk finally gets it:

 

[Keef]

As for Omnis's video, yes, with Obama being President and shushing Democrats in Congress, and the Republican majority in the congress, we've got a perfect storm to turn this country into a hell hole. The labels "Democrat" and "Republican" don't mean anything anymore - they all want to attack American liberties, but from different directions. The end goal is the same, and that is to control everything.

 

[Liquid]

Completely off-topic, but who is that in your avatar Keef?

---

I try to follow American politics when I can, but I haven't been able to follow much of the election campaign. The only things I am certain of are things that everybody (should) be certain of: Bachmann and Palin are moronic.

So, if there is a consensus that Ron Paul is a great candidate but doesn't appeal to the traditional Republicans enough to get nominated as some people have suggested, who will be on the GOP ticket instead?

 

[Keef]

Completely off-topic, but who is that in your avatar Keef?

His name is Ben Bernanke, and he is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. He is probably the most powerful person on the planet.

I try to follow American politics when I can, but I haven't been able to follow much of the election campaign. The only things I am certain of are things that everybody (should) be certain of: Bachmann and Palin are moronic.

So, if there is a consensus that Ron Paul is a great candidate but doesn't appeal to the traditional Republicans enough to get nominated as some people have suggested, who will be on the GOP ticket instead?

My view on the candidates you'll still find on stage:

Jon Huntsman: Not a chance. He's the second-best candidate, but I just had to look his name up because I forgot it. Dislikes Muslims.

Rick Santorum: Not a chance. He tries too hard. He also hates gays and Muslims.

Michele Bachmann: She might get some support in the primaries, but not much. She's a self-declared moron. She hates Muslims too.

Rick Perry: He's as stupid as George W. Bush, while also not campaigning on classically Republican, limited-government, non-intervention platform as did GWB. Incompetent fool. Sadly, he'll probably get some support in the primaries. Hates gays (he said it in his commercial) and Muslims.

Newt Gingrich: Holy cow does this guy hate Muslims. He's a lieing, thieving, cheating bastard ready and willing to stab the back of anyone in the way of his millions. He would gladly give insider information of a Government Sponsored Enterprise, if he hadn't already done that with Freddie Mac, from whom he accepted $1.6 million for his troubles soon before the bank was bailed out by the American public. He's a war-monger. He's an outspoken, loud, and intimidating person who uses force to get done what he wants. He would make a very dangerous, destructive president.

I believe this race will boil down to Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. One of these two has been the same person for decades, and the other has been many people in the span of a week. Care to guess who that is? You guessed it - I'm surprised Mitt doesn't own a chain of IHOP restaurants because all he does is waffle. He's also disgustingly rich, at about $200 million or so. Even Rick Perry agrees that Mitt supports individual mandates for healthcare and who knows what else. He dislikes Muslims but his handsome smile makes up for it.

Then there's Dr. Paul. Saved the best for last. If only all you foreigners who like the man would come over here and vote, he would win 10 times over. Though I believe the race will boil down to Paul and Romney, I honestly can't tell you who would win because this country is chock full of unbelievably stupid people.

 

[Liquid]

Interesting appraisals Keef. And in the interests in fairness, your opinion on the Democrats? Either Obama personally or the party as a whole at the moment.

 

[Keef]

Obama is a stereotypical Chicago politician. If you were from the States you'd understand that little joke, but since you're not I'll make it simple: He wants to keep you stupid, poor, and dependent so you do as he says you should.

He's got many friends and mentors from Chicago, all of whom supposedly worked for the benefit of the poorest people in that city in particular, and across the country. They're the type of people who believe in group rights, not individual rights. They gathered all the poor black people from Chicago into a bunch, then preached about how they were being held down by the white man, and convinced them that they're owed something by the rest of the country. They set up welfare organizations and got all these poor people signed on. Now all those people are dependent on government assistance, have lacked education for generations, and are nigh incapable of bettering their situation in life because of the great work that Obama and his cronies did for them. The southern end of Chicago, which is where these folks concentrated their ghetto-saving efforts, is now home to four of the twenty five most dangerous neighborhoods in the country.

Same stuff happened here in Cincinnati, down the highway a bit from where I live. A guy named Buddy Gray did the same type of social work, helping out minorties (poor blacks) in Cincy. He set up low-income housing and whatnot in Over-the-Rhine, a town on the north edge of downtown Cincinnati overlooking the river, which used to be packed full of hard-working European immigrants, mostly German, hence the name. As the black people moved in during 1950s and 60s, the white people moved out to the Suburbs, a common phenomenon in the country at the time. Well, long story short, Buddy Gray was eventually murdered on the sidewalk by a homeless man he had helped personally, and OTR is now the location of the number one most dangerous neighborhood in the country.

Do I sound ridiculous? Of course I do. This stuff just plain sounds ridiculous, but nobody can deny that it's true. The number of Obama associates who have been in prison for fraud, or involved in various scandals, or are on record preaching hate about various things, is so often ignored it's hilarious, but is truly alarming. The man learned things from some of the most socially destructive people of recent decades in our country.

EDIT: The study I linked you was from 2009. In the 2010 version, Cincy dropped down to 24, while Chicago took the top spot but only had two places on the list, instead of four.

The fact is that both the Republican and Democrat parties are in the business of destroying civil liberties in our country. The only difference is that they attack it from different angles. The end goal is the same as it has been for thousands of years, and that is to control everything. There are many historical examples of failures of government that have an uncanny resemblence to what is occurring in our world right now.

 

[Liquid]

Obama is a stereotypical Chicago politician. If you were from the States you'd understand that little joke, but since you're not I'll make it simple: He wants to keep you stupid, poor, and dependent so you do as he says you should.

That sounds strikingly similar to Tony Blair, who was the most multi-faced person since Janus. He was also from the 'left' but was so far in Dubya's pocket that we went to war in the Middle East under false pretenses. Blair managed to win 3 elections as a two faced SOB because the opposition were mismanaged without true leadership. Sound familiar?

But I digress. This isn't a place for UK politics.

---

I must admit, I was an Obama supporter in 2008. In an anybody-but-Bush sort of way, which is why I wanted the Democrats to win. I know Bush wasn't running because he'd served his two terms but I wasn't keen on the same party continuing his legacy. Especially if Palin had made office on the McCain ticket.

I think that Obama has had a tough job. Anybody who had to take office after Bush and negotiate the worst financial crisis since the 30s was going to have a tough time. Could he have dealt with things better? Perhaps, perhaps not. As an outsider without a real insight into the American system which is not the Westminster system I can't accurately judge how well or how bad he or the politicians around him have been. But from the readings on this forum, there isn't much support for him.

The thing that gets me though, is how the Republicans are still popular and accepted despite their loonies and the horrendous gaffs they make, which are then subsequantly broadcast coast to coast. And I'm talking New England cost to the British coast.

An outsider watching with great interest.

 

[Keef]

Both parties are moronic. There are only a few individuals within either party who conduct themselves properly, Ron Paul being from the Republican party.

As for Bush, he had a great campaign platform. People had high hopes for him, hoping he would return to a limited-government role that the Feds should have been doing the whole time. When 9/11 happened, he and both parties just got scared and went crazy. Even crazier than they already were.

As an American, I'm curious how you feel about the US having military bases within your country?

 

[Liquid]

As an American, I'm curious how you feel about the US having military bases within your country?

Well, I'm of the opinion that the USA carries more 'weight' in the special relationship, but I can't say I personally have a problem with USAF personnel/activity in the UK. When it comes to the army, I have great respect for those who are willing to serve the country, even if I disagree with the wars in which they are participating. So if the USAF are using their UK landing strips to transfer people for waterboarding, or plotting drone attacks on Pakistan and I do have a problem with it, I don't have a problem with the people, but the politicians behind them.

There's co-operation with military strategies and armies throughout Europe already, so it's something we're used to hearing about in the press and in a way it makes sense for us to enable ease of access for our other major ally.

 

[Keef]

Interesting. See, because here in the States, if a foreign country were to suggest putting their own base on our soil, our government would be up in arms and the public would be on the rampage. Kinda funny how that works out.

We do let foreign militaries conduct training exercises here, but they occur on our bases with our rules.

 

[Liquid]

Well America has a more inflated sense of patriotism which I think can sometimes border on arrogance (Not everyone of course, but it is apparent to some degree), so I can imagine that there would be uproar. But the USA has the luxury of being away from any probable location of warfare, so there's no real reason for a foreign army to require bases there anyway.

Not to say that the people in the UK bend over and would allow any country to do anything, but we generally don't seem to mind assisting our allies by providing some air bases. I could be right in saying that the USAF is the only country with a military presence in the UK, perhaps Canada and Australia too but I'm unsure. The point being that other allies such as France and Germany don't need air bases in the UK so it's not too big a deal. In my opinion anyway.

 

[A2K78]

Interesting. See, because here in the States, if a foreign country were to suggest putting their own base on our soil, our government would be up in arms and the public would be on the rampage. Kinda funny how that works out.

We do let foreign militaries conduct training exercises here, but they occur on our bases with our rules.

This is quite true and I have made this case.

 

[FoolKiller]

Bingo. And why are they religious? Because they're raised to be, and then in school they're taught that God created everything.

I seriously do not believe this is the case. If they're raised to believe in creationism but taught about evolution in school I think a good amount of them will accept what their teacher is saying. Not right away perhaps, but after a while. Parents taughts their kids to believe in Santa as well, right? Yet none of them believe in him at the age of 10. It depends on the individual I guess, but in general parents have very little to do with what one ends up believing in I'd say.

I suggest you learn some stuff about American public schools before trying this line of logic again. Creationism is rarely, if ever, taught in public schools.

Plus, you seem to be hinting that you would be fine if creationism being taught was outlawed (it is taught in private religious and home schooling curriculum). I would have an equal amount of issue with that as I would if it were forced to be taught. I may have read your feelings on that issue incorrectly, so please correct me if I am wrong.

If he doesn't consider this subject important, that's another failure of reasoning.

He doesn't feel it is an important subject to be a matter for federal office. As a doctor I am sure that he understands the overall importance of the subject.




The one thing I find interesting in all of this is that I pointed out Ron Paul's views on abortion and gay marriage as well, and yet the evolution issue is the one that seems to suddenly create issues with people. If you are willing to let your vote be swayed by his views of evolution because you think it somehow would affect his role as president I strongly suggest you look at these two other personal views he holds compared to how he has voted on them.

What I really find sad is that none of this information about Ron Paul is new. If you are a voting American and just now realize this about Ron Paul I think it says much more about your quality as a voter than it does about his would be quality as US president. Know your candidates. If they have a book, read it. If they have been in office for years, look at their voting record. Don't spend months saying you think someone is the only smart guy out there and then suddenly question his intelligence because you find out he has a belief you think is a mark of stupidity.


EDIT: One last thing I would like to add to this Ron Paul discussion. I know his view on things politically, his views on individual rights, and how he has voted on the issues. All I can say about that is that he could believe my dog barfed everything into existence and I would still vote for him, because a loon with a proper understanding of individual liberty is far, far safer than a genius, dictator-wannabe.

Rick Santorum: Not a chance. He tries too hard. He also hates gays and Muslims.

His last name also returns some very unfortunate Google results.

 

[Keef]

Interesting. I figured there'd be some unwanted side effects of such a questionable procedure. Not getting elected being #1.

 

[ChaosStar79]

I suggest you learn some stuff about American public schools before trying this line of logic again. Creationism is rarely, if ever, taught in public schools.

Plus, you seem to be hinting that you would be fine if creationism being taught was outlawed (it is taught in private religious and home schooling curriculum). I would have an equal amount of issue with that as I would if it were forced to be taught. I may have read your feelings on that issue incorrectly, so please correct me if I am wrong.


He doesn't feel it is an important subject to be a matter for federal office. As a doctor I am sure that he understands the overall importance of the subject.




The one thing I find interesting in all of this is that I pointed out Ron Paul's views on abortion and gay marriage as well, and yet the evolution issue is the one that seems to suddenly create issues with people. If you are willing to let your vote be swayed by his views of evolution because you think it somehow would affect his role as president I strongly suggest you look at these two other personal views he holds compared to how he has voted on them.

What I really find sad is that none of this information about Ron Paul is new. If you are a voting American and just now realize this about Ron Paul I think it says much more about your quality as a voter than it does about his would be quality as US president. Know your candidates. If they have a book, read it. If they have been in office for years, look at their voting record. Don't spend months saying you think someone is the only smart guy out there and then suddenly question his intelligence because you find out he has a belief you think is a mark of stupidity.


EDIT: One last thing I would like to add to this Ron Paul discussion. I know his view on things politically, his views on individual rights, and how he has voted on the issues. All I can say about that is that he could believe my dog barfed everything into existence and I would still vote for him, because a loon with a proper of understanding of individual liberty is far, far safer than a genius, dictator-wannabe.




His last name also returns some very unfortunate Google results.

WOW. Very nice post sir.

 

[YSSMAN]

Both parties are moronic. There are only a few individuals within either party who conduct themselves properly, Ron Paul being from the Republican party.

Pretty much. The Republicans are so focused on the immediate win that they can't see their politics driving the country into the ground. The war mongering alone is what worries me most. The Democrats can't grow a backbone and fight for what's right, and in the end, they wasted two years with a mandate where they could have accomplished almost anything.

My only hope is that 2012 is a bloodbath for incumbents. December has been a frustrating month as a young man who generally votes Democrat, watching my expectations begin to fall apart with the NDAA and SOPA. It will be interesting to see how the next few months work out, with the primaries begging in just a week or two, and the race to the middle with each candidate. Between OWS and the Tea Party, voting rights issues, disenfranchised Democrats AND Republicans... This could either be the most interesting election in recent memory, or one of the absolute worst.

I'll be voting for Ron Paul again in the primaries, as usual. After that, we'll see how it goes.