Why do you think republicans are flat-out bad?

Page 3 of 6 [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

28 Jun 2011, 11:56 pm

LKL wrote:
liveandletdie wrote:
Ron paul is a republican...though not like the rest of em, more like as a republican should be.

He's delivered 4,000 babies....hard to call him evil.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE4aMDOZzSc[/youtube]

I don't think Paul is evil; I do think he's an ideologue.


Hmmm, something you and Ron Paul have in common.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

29 Jun 2011, 12:05 am

liveandletdie wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
How is tasteless? Paul doesn't want to impose his religious views on anyone. What does it matter? It's an irrelevant issue.


Jesus Christ, another Ron Paulite I'm arguing with used the exact same rebuttal (he being a centre-left convert to Paulism, as opposed to a rightwing convert such as yourself). Well, my answers the same: a know-nothing attitude to biology will have disasterous consequences, especially when it comes to making mid-term funding decisions before Ron Paul establishes his Utopia (believe me, there'll always be a transitional phase where Paul actually has to give guidance or sign off on actual PUBLIC POLICY before he privatizes it).


This idea that Ron Paul knows nothing about science because of an answer in regards to evolution which lets face it isn't that scientific. (More a historical perspective if you will...though sure there is some science in it of course.) The man is a doctor, if you didn't know this already doctors have to have a pretty good understanding of science. How else would they know how the body works?

You've just demonstrated that you know very little about science, very little about biology, and very little about medicine.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

29 Jun 2011, 12:06 am

Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
liveandletdie wrote:
Ron paul is a republican...though not like the rest of em, more like as a republican should be.

He's delivered 4,000 babies....hard to call him evil.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE4aMDOZzSc[/youtube]

I don't think Paul is evil; I do think he's an ideologue.


Hmmm, something you and Ron Paul have in common.

I'm not running for president.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

29 Jun 2011, 12:08 am

LKL wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
LKL wrote:
liveandletdie wrote:
Ron paul is a republican...though not like the rest of em, more like as a republican should be.

He's delivered 4,000 babies....hard to call him evil.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE4aMDOZzSc[/youtube]

I don't think Paul is evil; I do think he's an ideologue.


Hmmm, something you and Ron Paul have in common.

I'm not running for president.


No, but you are supporting the ideologue that is currently in the White House that thinks anyone whom disagrees with him is the enemy.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

29 Jun 2011, 12:17 am

Which? The 'ideologue' who's so 'left wing' that he's enacted Republican proposal after Republican proposal, pre-emptively caved to the Repubs. on every challenge, and failed to hold up his most important progressive campaign promises? The man who sent 40K more troops to Afghanistan, tightened the screws on whistleblowers (up to and including the psychological torture of Bradley Manning), who failed to prosecute war criminals because it would be 'divisive,' and who got us involved in another war in Libya? That man, you're calling an ideologue? He's a right-centrist, you fool, and the fact that you think he's an ideologue only proves that you haven't been paying attention to anything you read on these forums.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

29 Jun 2011, 5:27 pm

I can think of a few Republicans right of the top of my head that, although I don't necessarily agree with them, I can't really find it in me to condemn:

1) Burr tends to be responsible and level-headed, and he can see through partisan B.S..

2) Boehner I have never really agreed with, but he strikes me as sincere.

3) Robert Gates has done pretty well in his job.

4) Guiliani isn't exactly a paragon of moral perfection, but he isn't evil either and is competent.

If you want to know the truth, I really hate conservative political commentators a lot more than I hate Republican politicians.

Besides that, I think that the country has gotten swept-up in the siren song of libertarianism to about the same extent that communism used to grip Russia, and it's going to lead to similar disaster as our government increasingly attempts to apply a stilted and hackneyed policy that is based on an utterly juvenile and stupid comprehension of how economics actually work.

Oh, well. We'll have our little calamity, I'll weather it, and life will go on. Just because we're on collision course with economic catastrophe doesn't mean the world is coming to an end. Maybe I could spend the worst years of that backpacking through the wilderness, or maybe I'll travel to Europe for a few years where civilization and good government still exist. But the USA is going to break down Balkan-style at some point, and anyone who doesn't see it coming is delusional.



liveandletdie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 902

29 Jun 2011, 5:54 pm

LKL wrote:
liveandletdie wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
How is tasteless? Paul doesn't want to impose his religious views on anyone. What does it matter? It's an irrelevant issue.


Jesus Christ, another Ron Paulite I'm arguing with used the exact same rebuttal (he being a centre-left convert to Paulism, as opposed to a rightwing convert such as yourself). Well, my answers the same: a know-nothing attitude to biology will have disasterous consequences, especially when it comes to making mid-term funding decisions before Ron Paul establishes his Utopia (believe me, there'll always be a transitional phase where Paul actually has to give guidance or sign off on actual PUBLIC POLICY before he privatizes it).


This idea that Ron Paul knows nothing about science because of an answer in regards to evolution which lets face it isn't that scientific. (More a historical perspective if you will...though sure there is some science in it of course.) The man is a doctor, if you didn't know this already doctors have to have a pretty good understanding of science. How else would they know how the body works?

You've just demonstrated that you know very little about science, very little about biology, and very little about medicine.


So biology, chemistry, anatamy, physiology, pharmacology, microbiology and biochemistry are not science's? And in saying that they are sciences that doctors study, demonstrates my lack of understanding of science, biology, and medicine. Just so we're clear...and because I called evolution a historical perspective (meaning it is a time line of species who have mutated and adapted to eventually become what we see today and will if true dictate what species will be in the future) this makes my knowledge on science, biology, and medicine very little. Okie doke.


_________________
“It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.”
― George Washington


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

29 Jun 2011, 6:07 pm

TheBicyclingGuitarist wrote:
IF creationism were to be taught in science classrooms, I would have no objections IF it were done honestly. Sure, present both sides and let the students decide. On one side, literally tons of evidence of many different types. On the other side, NO evidence, none at all, and that other side ignores much evidence, and denies or distorts the evidence it doesn't ignore. Really, if it were done honestly, creationists would be sorry they wished for their religious belief to be exposed for what it is in science classrooms.

I like this. There should be a subject called "What people believe in". And every semester talk about beliefs.

"This is what Christians believe in". Show em cartoons depicting all the crazy stories and talk about the blurry evidence. Then we should have one about "This is what scientologies believe in". And one for Muslims and one for Jews. Include one for African cannibal tribes too.

Quote:
In logic, I don't believe someone will get voted in or have any chance if they were to openly admit bypassing the constitution.

Haha guess again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard

Teaching creationism as science in public schools is the same as pushing beliefs and trying to force them on people. It has been ruled unconstitutional, easy as that. Ergo Bachmann is a crazy gal looking forward to pushing her crazy beliefs on US people against the constitution.

cave_canem wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Politicians are evil by default. And think about it, you wouldn't want anyone less than a sociopath to lead a government. Governments are faced with hilarious difficult decisions all the time and it takes a sociopath that has no conscience to take them.


I think you are describing Canada's Prime Minister.
(Although there are rumors he's actually a robot...)

I actually hold belief, how we need them and how they make the individuals that go with them successful sexually are the only reason the psychopath gene has not died off and is actually a sizable percentage of the human population.


_________________
.


Beaux
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 206
Location: Mississippi, USA

29 Jun 2011, 6:56 pm

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with most republican beliefs, but some people just think that if you contradict EVERYTHING a republican says, it makes you seem smart. You can disagree, but think about things before you do. (I technically classify as a democrat, but I'm sort of ignorant on politics. I'm just 15, after all)



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

29 Jun 2011, 7:00 pm

liveandletdie wrote:
LKL wrote:
liveandletdie wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
How is tasteless? Paul doesn't want to impose his religious views on anyone. What does it matter? It's an irrelevant issue.


Jesus Christ, another Ron Paulite I'm arguing with used the exact same rebuttal (he being a centre-left convert to Paulism, as opposed to a rightwing convert such as yourself). Well, my answers the same: a know-nothing attitude to biology will have disasterous consequences, especially when it comes to making mid-term funding decisions before Ron Paul establishes his Utopia (believe me, there'll always be a transitional phase where Paul actually has to give guidance or sign off on actual PUBLIC POLICY before he privatizes it).


This idea that Ron Paul knows nothing about science because of an answer in regards to evolution which lets face it isn't that scientific. (More a historical perspective if you will...though sure there is some science in it of course.) The man is a doctor, if you didn't know this already doctors have to have a pretty good understanding of science. How else would they know how the body works?

You've just demonstrated that you know very little about science, very little about biology, and very little about medicine.


So biology, chemistry, anatamy, physiology, pharmacology, microbiology and biochemistry are not science's? And in saying that they are sciences that doctors study, demonstrates my lack of understanding of science, biology, and medicine. Just so we're clear...and because I called evolution a historical perspective (meaning it is a time line of species who have mutated and adapted to eventually become what we see today and will if true dictate what species will be in the future) this makes my knowledge on science, biology, and medicine very little. Okie doke.

I am a trained biologist who works in a clinical laboratory. Evolution is partly historical, in that it examines what happened over the history of life on earth, but it is scientific in that it makes predictions of what will be found both in the fossil record and in what is occurring with species today. Evolution can be observed happening in real time.

Modern medicine, particularly epidemiology, makes extensive use of the ToE, and medical research is of course completely scientific. However, many practitioners of medicine, particularly the older ones, are practitioners of an art as opposed to a science in the same way that a car mechanic is. Many providers accept and use accumulated scientific knowledge without necessarily knowing, understanding, or accepting how that knowledge was obtained. The chemistry, pharmacology, and biology classes that they took often fed them vast quantities of data without explaining a great deal of how that data was obtained experimentally, much less teaching them how to conduct their own experiments de novo.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jun 2011, 7:01 pm

Beaux wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I disagree with most republican beliefs, but some people just think that if you contradict EVERYTHING a republican says, it makes you seem smart. You can disagree, but think about things before you do. (I technically classify as a democrat, but I'm sort of ignorant on politics. I'm just 15, after all)


Unless you have worked for a living your opinions on the economy are really not worth much. In order to run you must have a dog in the race.

ruveyn



Beaux
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 206
Location: Mississippi, USA

29 Jun 2011, 7:13 pm

I didn't say anything about the economy and admitted to being ignorant. I fail to see any reason I can't express my opinion when proper disclaimers are given. :?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Jun 2011, 7:14 pm

Beaux wrote:
I didn't say anything about the economy and admitted to being ignorant. I fail to see any reason I can't express my opinion when proper disclaimers are given. :?


Every one has a right to their own opinions. They do not have a right to their own facts.

ruveyn



liveandletdie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 May 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 902

29 Jun 2011, 7:34 pm

LKL wrote:
liveandletdie wrote:
LKL wrote:
liveandletdie wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
How is tasteless? Paul doesn't want to impose his religious views on anyone. What does it matter? It's an irrelevant issue.


Jesus Christ, another Ron Paulite I'm arguing with used the exact same rebuttal (he being a centre-left convert to Paulism, as opposed to a rightwing convert such as yourself). Well, my answers the same: a know-nothing attitude to biology will have disasterous consequences, especially when it comes to making mid-term funding decisions before Ron Paul establishes his Utopia (believe me, there'll always be a transitional phase where Paul actually has to give guidance or sign off on actual PUBLIC POLICY before he privatizes it).


This idea that Ron Paul knows nothing about science because of an answer in regards to evolution which lets face it isn't that scientific. (More a historical perspective if you will...though sure there is some science in it of course.) The man is a doctor, if you didn't know this already doctors have to have a pretty good understanding of science. How else would they know how the body works?

You've just demonstrated that you know very little about science, very little about biology, and very little about medicine.


So biology, chemistry, anatamy, physiology, pharmacology, microbiology and biochemistry are not science's? And in saying that they are sciences that doctors study, demonstrates my lack of understanding of science, biology, and medicine. Just so we're clear...and because I called evolution a historical perspective (meaning it is a time line of species who have mutated and adapted to eventually become what we see today and will if true dictate what species will be in the future) this makes my knowledge on science, biology, and medicine very little. Okie doke.

I am a trained biologist who works in a clinical laboratory. Evolution is partly historical, in that it examines what happened over the history of life on earth, but it is scientific in that it makes predictions of what will be found both in the fossil record and in what is occurring with species today. Evolution can be observed happening in real time.

Modern medicine, particularly epidemiology, makes extensive use of the ToE, and medical research is of course completely scientific. However, many practitioners of medicine, particularly the older ones, are practitioners of an art as opposed to a science in the same way that a car mechanic is. Many providers accept and use accumulated scientific knowledge without necessarily knowing, understanding, or accepting how that knowledge was obtained. The chemistry, pharmacology, and biology classes that they took often fed them vast quantities of data without explaining a great deal of how that data was obtained experimentally, much less teaching them how to conduct their own experiments de novo.


That's cool to know, then you definately know a lot more than me about biology...and most sciences =P....and from that position compared to you yes, I know very little ha.

As ron paul is 75 years old, he would have been around 25-30 when he became a doctor making it 50-55 years ago around 1960-65+ and on. And his education prior to that.
True we have come a long ways scientificly since then, however he does offer a unique perspective in that while he was a doctor health insurance was not as big an issue and malpractice insurance, and costs visiting a doctor did not cost as much. Or am I incorrect in saying that? I will have to research....

I still believe he has a better understanding of science when compared to most politicians. Most politicians study law, which is not very scientific.

It would definately be an interesting interview to find out exactly what he thinks/knows about science today vs in the past and the medical field today vs the past besides just the growing costs.


_________________
“It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one.”
― George Washington


Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 81
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

29 Jun 2011, 9:35 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Beaux wrote:
I didn't say anything about the economy and admitted to being ignorant. I fail to see any reason I can't express my opinion when proper disclaimers are given. :?


Every one has a right to their own opinions. They do not have a right to their own facts.

ruveyn


Now that is plain stupid. No two people have access to the same inventory of facts - that includes Siamese twins.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

29 Jun 2011, 10:17 pm

Philologos wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Beaux wrote:
I didn't say anything about the economy and admitted to being ignorant. I fail to see any reason I can't express my opinion when proper disclaimers are given. :?


Every one has a right to their own opinions. They do not have a right to their own facts.

ruveyn


Now that is plain stupid. No two people have access to the same inventory of facts - that includes Siamese twins.


Yes we do. Just Google it.