SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (22) down (20)
The cult of Ron Paul

The cult of Ron Paul

(8:48) YouTube user TheAmazingAtheist gets hot under the collar over Ron Paul supporters, aka Paulites. He claims they are so blinded by Ron Paul's foreign policy that they cannot, or unwilling to, look at his bad ideas. Ron Paul is a creationist. How can you trust a man who chooses to ignore the overwhelming evidence for evolution? Will he ignore evidence as US president writing policy?

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Argle (3346 days ago)
Latest comment: OOOOOHHHH!!!! I love this! His primary point supporting abortion is that the un-born child is a parasitic organism that someone is forced to support and raise and provide for financially indefinitely and that on that basis the person that might be forced to support that organism should be wallowed to eliminate it to avoid the forced responsility. I love it. So, can I go shoot all welfare recipients I'm forced to pay for? Thanks, dude, you just gave me the justification. (But I'm sorry for the run-on sentene, but you get the idea.) (BTW, I'm trying to think of a single president who was an atheist... i.e., doesn't support the notion of a Creator. WTH is this even an issue in regard to political interests?)
Original comment
Latest comment: OOOOOHHHH!!!! I love this! His primary point supporting abortion is that the un-born child is a parasitic organism that someone is forced to support and raise and provide for financially indefinitely and that on that basis the person that might be forced to support that organism should be wallowed to eliminate it to avoid the forced responsility. I love it. So, can I go shoot all welfare recipients I'm forced to pay for? Thanks, dude, you just gave me the justification. (But I'm sorry for the run-on sentene, but you get the idea.) (BTW, I'm trying to think of a single president who was an atheist... i.e., doesn't support the notion of a Creator. WTH is this even an issue in regard to political interests?)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3353 days ago)
I always like to get my political advice from fat beardy guys who have trouble looking at the camera.
ReplyVote up (38)down (101)
Original comment
I always like to get my political advice from fat beardy guys who have trouble looking at the camera.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3353 days ago)
Em, listen to a reasonable, sensible, well informed fat bearded guy orrrr listen to some loser who wasted his time posting a slur comment on boreme? i think i'll stick to the guy who talks sense, not some mongo who focuses on appearance to detract from a persons point. I'm sure you've some modeling work to do scholar, so f**k off and do it.
Original comment
Em, listen to a reasonable, sensible, well informed fat bearded guy orrrr listen to some loser who wasted his time posting a slur comment on boreme? i think i'll stick to the guy who talks sense, not some mongo who focuses on appearance to detract from a persons point. I'm sure you've some modeling work to do scholar, so f**k off and do it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3353 days ago)
Actually I was doing a bit more than that. You see this fellow's argument is essentially that we should question someone's judgement, even to the point of ignoring the value of his arguments in other areas if he fails egregiously in some particular narrow and irrelevant way (Ron Paul is running for president, not supreme dictator of abiogenesic theory)....I compared it to dismissing this fellow because I disapprove of his grooming and regard his inability to control his eating habits as a clear character flaw. I did to him what he does to Ron Paul, geddit?
Original comment
Actually I was doing a bit more than that. You see this fellow's argument is essentially that we should question someone's judgement, even to the point of ignoring the value of his arguments in other areas if he fails egregiously in some particular narrow and irrelevant way (Ron Paul is running for president, not supreme dictator of abiogenesic theory)....I compared it to dismissing this fellow because I disapprove of his grooming and regard his inability to control his eating habits as a clear character flaw. I did to him what he does to Ron Paul, geddit?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3350 days ago)
Well then you have erroneously ignored the point, and also your argument wrapped comparison is flawed. TheAmazingAtheist is not giving advise on appearance. You've taken a moral ground based either on mistaking grooming with hygiene or due to some sort of superiority complex based on how immaculate you look. You're still a sap and TheAmazingAtheist's point is valid.
Original comment
Well then you have erroneously ignored the point, and also your argument wrapped comparison is flawed. TheAmazingAtheist is not giving advise on appearance. You've taken a moral ground based either on mistaking grooming with hygiene or due to some sort of superiority complex based on how immaculate you look. You're still a sap and TheAmazingAtheist's point is valid.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3348 days ago)
Well, you have asserted it, it must be true...The key point of my comparison, the one you have ignored, is condemning someone's ideas in one area because of his ideas in a completely different one. It's a version of the ad hominem fallacy. Like saying because someone is bad at maths you should not listen to any argument they make about etymology. You use an unrelated shortcoming, could be anything, to call the man himself into question rather than addressing yourself to the arguments he presents. Bill Clinton is the arch example, he had a lascivious nature therefore his policies and judgement were faulty. I used this fellow's appearance and manner because I don't know anything else about him but I'm certian if he were examined as rigorously as Ron Paul has been I could find something more appropriate. None of us is without our peculiar ideas, our reasoning warped by emotion. If you are going to condemn a man you need a good deal more than an unexplained offhand remark...This fellow doesn't like Ron Paul's policies, neither do I but I would address the wrong-headedness of those policies rather than try to manipulate people into my point of view by such a low and mendacious route.
Original comment
Well, you have asserted it, it must be true...The key point of my comparison, the one you have ignored, is condemning someone's ideas in one area because of his ideas in a completely different one. It's a version of the ad hominem fallacy. Like saying because someone is bad at maths you should not listen to any argument they make about etymology. You use an unrelated shortcoming, could be anything, to call the man himself into question rather than addressing yourself to the arguments he presents. Bill Clinton is the arch example, he had a lascivious nature therefore his policies and judgement were faulty. I used this fellow's appearance and manner because I don't know anything else about him but I'm certian if he were examined as rigorously as Ron Paul has been I could find something more appropriate. None of us is without our peculiar ideas, our reasoning warped by emotion. If you are going to condemn a man you need a good deal more than an unexplained offhand remark...This fellow doesn't like Ron Paul's policies, neither do I but I would address the wrong-headedness of those policies rather than try to manipulate people into my point of view by such a low and mendacious route.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3348 days ago)
Of course it's true, i did allude to it. Look, there is no need to explain in length. I get where you come from. The difference is that all of Ron Paul's views are encompassed in politics. He is trying to get elected on said views. His views are based on his "different" views. There entwined in his views. How does grooming factor into what TheAmazingAtheist says i'm not sure. You've tried to wrap several facets of the TheAmazingAtheist to create a spectrum. It's just not that simple. Taking a leaf from you, If TheAmazingAtheist made an illogical statement which science proved wrong, then i might ignore his advice because they come from the same well and to add to the point if i felt that grooming or lack of, influenced a persons thought pattern, the it might be an issue. On the flip side, if Ron Paul said Robert Mugabe was a humanitarian sent here by god, would you use it as a medium to question his other views? Looks, and viewpoints on politics,religion or science are not easily grouped. I'm sorry but your little joke has fallen flat on me big time. I'm sure you found it uber hilarious and quite witty but it's a poor excuse, nevermind how well you try to defend it. P.S. Only idiots and media money grabbing whores questioned Bill Clinton's politics due to his male urges. Some of us know where to draw the line. Believing in an imaginary friend, or acting out human impulses. Emmm i know which one i would understand better.
Original comment
Of course it's true, i did allude to it. Look, there is no need to explain in length. I get where you come from. The difference is that all of Ron Paul's views are encompassed in politics. He is trying to get elected on said views. His views are based on his "different" views. There entwined in his views. How does grooming factor into what TheAmazingAtheist says i'm not sure. You've tried to wrap several facets of the TheAmazingAtheist to create a spectrum. It's just not that simple. Taking a leaf from you, If TheAmazingAtheist made an illogical statement which science proved wrong, then i might ignore his advice because they come from the same well and to add to the point if i felt that grooming or lack of, influenced a persons thought pattern, the it might be an issue. On the flip side, if Ron Paul said Robert Mugabe was a humanitarian sent here by god, would you use it as a medium to question his other views? Looks, and viewpoints on politics,religion or science are not easily grouped. I'm sorry but your little joke has fallen flat on me big time. I'm sure you found it uber hilarious and quite witty but it's a poor excuse, nevermind how well you try to defend it. P.S. Only idiots and media money grabbing whores questioned Bill Clinton's politics due to his male urges. Some of us know where to draw the line. Believing in an imaginary friend, or acting out human impulses. Emmm i know which one i would understand better.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3348 days ago)
Have you actually read what Ron Paul said about evolution? I'll give you some of it:"With regard to evolution, I mean… I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on this, especially in politics... And besides, if you’re in politics it shouldn’t be a bother. This is something maybe not dealing with science as much with your own spiritual life, your personal beliefs. The important thing is that you have a political system where you can debate this and make a decision and government rule shouldn’t be based on this. If you have governments basing their rules on this, then it becomes very important. But in a libertarian society these beliefs aren’t nearly as critical."... Evolution is the best scientific explanation of how life came to be, it can be proved to occur but it can never be proved to be a complete explanation. Science doesn't give complete explanations.
Original comment
Have you actually read what Ron Paul said about evolution? I'll give you some of it:"With regard to evolution, I mean… I just don’t spend a whole lot of time on this, especially in politics... And besides, if you’re in politics it shouldn’t be a bother. This is something maybe not dealing with science as much with your own spiritual life, your personal beliefs. The important thing is that you have a political system where you can debate this and make a decision and government rule shouldn’t be based on this. If you have governments basing their rules on this, then it becomes very important. But in a libertarian society these beliefs aren’t nearly as critical."... Evolution is the best scientific explanation of how life came to be, it can be proved to occur but it can never be proved to be a complete explanation. Science doesn't give complete explanations.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3353 days ago)
Give link to your youtube channel below so we can get some proper advice from a pro
Original comment
Give link to your youtube channel below so we can get some proper advice from a pro
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3353 days ago)
If you want my advice you are going to have to do something to deserve it.
Original comment
If you want my advice you are going to have to do something to deserve it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Theories
Theories
Kitty Wigs
Kitty Wigs
The Berglas Effect
The Berglas Effect
Rachel Maddow - The widening gap between rich and poor
Rachel Maddow - The widening gap between rich and poor
Bold move by Ferrari management
Bold move by Ferrari management