Why do you think republicans are flat-out bad?

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

liveandletdie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 Jun 2011, 8:11 pm

science should be to the scientists....

just as many issues that are too deep into the past to have concrete facts, people will never agree on these things until we build a time machine.

I like finding out about ancient fossils though..i think it's pretty neat to hear of things that were here a long time ago.

With that said, Ron Paul stance is that schools should not be controlled by the federal government so this discussion of what should be important topics/class work in school would be a moot point, that would be up to the schools run by private entities.


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


cave_canem
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

28 Jun 2011, 8:59 pm

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...)



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

28 Jun 2011, 9:07 pm

"Why do you think republicans are flat-out bad?"

Poison the Well much?


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

28 Jun 2011, 9:47 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
I wonder what the good, biologically informed doctor thinks of evolution.

"First, I think it was very inapproperiate, for the Presidency to be decided on a scientific matter."

Indeed, I too think it'd be great to have scientific know-nothings running the World's Only Superpower.

Source (the video title is pretty tasteless, but Ron Paul's statements are even more-so):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g[/youtube]


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



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

28 Jun 2011, 9:49 pm

I'd like to see fewer lawyers and more scientists holding elected political offices.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


jrjones9933
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,144
Location: The end of the northwest passage

28 Jun 2011, 10:07 pm

I think they either use or fall for an essentially evil, but tried and true strategy, their badness as people doesn't much enter into it.

Quote:
Modern Republicans have a simple approach to politics when they are not in the White House: Make America as ungovernable as possible by using almost any means available, from challenging the legitimacy of opponents to spreading lies and disinformation to sabotaging the economy.


_________________
"I find that the best way [to increase self-confidence] is to lie to yourself about who you are, what you've done, and where you're going." - Richard Ayoade


blauSamstag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2011
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,026

28 Jun 2011, 10:22 pm

Bataar wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Nothing wrong with run of the mill conservatism. Where they go crazy is with the bible as science and law and the strange belief that some have that we don't need to pay our bills with revenue.

Even Reagan raised taxes at times. But for some reason anti-tax has become a religion today.

Taxes don't need to be raised, but reformed. There should be no tax increases until the government cuts spending. The federal government spends so much money on things that should not even be touched by the federal government it's sickening.


Alright, gimme your top 10 expenditures to cut and we'll figure out what percentage of the total budget they account for.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

28 Jun 2011, 10:23 pm

blauSamstag wrote:
Bataar wrote:
simon_says wrote:
Nothing wrong with run of the mill conservatism. Where they go crazy is with the bible as science and law and the strange belief that some have that we don't need to pay our bills with revenue.

Even Reagan raised taxes at times. But for some reason anti-tax has become a religion today.

Taxes don't need to be raised, but reformed. There should be no tax increases until the government cuts spending. The federal government spends so much money on things that should not even be touched by the federal government it's sickening.


Alright, gimme your top 10 expenditures to cut and we'll figure out what percentage of the total budget they account for.


I can cut 51% of the discretionary budget with one word.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

28 Jun 2011, 10:33 pm

Fnord wrote:
I'd like to see fewer lawyers and more scientists holding elected political offices.


You tend to get some really scary results when you try that. Think about certain scientific movements that we saw at the beginning of the 20th century and their effects on politics. It's a bad mix, the general population should not be considered lab rats.

Also, you can't tax your way out of this mess either. You can't raise 2 trillion in taxes. You just can't even when you ignore the moral argument against it. The government spending would be halved and permanently neutered before I'd ever consider raising taxes. If not, it's gunna be a hell of a show these next 20 years.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

28 Jun 2011, 10:41 pm

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).


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,750
Location: Stendec

28 Jun 2011, 10:52 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I'd like to see fewer lawyers and more scientists holding elected political offices.

You tend to get some really scary results when you try that. Think about certain scientific movements that we saw at the beginning of the 20th century and their effects on politics.

Such as ... ?
Jacoby wrote:
Also, you can't tax your way out of this mess either. You can't raise 2 trillion in taxes. You just can't even when you ignore the moral argument against it. The government spending would be halved and permanently neutered before I'd ever consider raising taxes. If not, it's gunna be a hell of a show these next 20 years.

I said nothing about taxation, so why are you jumping on my case?

Scientists, at least, have training in rational thought, while lawyers are interested only in arguing philosophically about whose claims are more valid, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


liveandletdie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 Jun 2011, 10:58 pm

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? Now he wont go into the history books as being the greatest science inventor of all time, but to say he knows nothing of science is just ignorant of the man. Now Ron Paul has never said he would establish a "Utopia" and he is well aware that things wont happen over night, in fact he is a realist and has said we live in an imperfect world. Even if he is to get the debt under control, take us out of foreign wars, end the federal reserve and remove non violent offenses from the books. People will still be human, and this nation will have many imperfections however these imperfections will not be above our grasp in the hands of money printing bureaucrats who know little about what makes this country great in the first place which used to be the lack of bureaucratic rule and the idea that a man/women can be the dictator of his own future.


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


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

28 Jun 2011, 11:18 pm

His answer really isn't that much different that most US politicians. As far as I know, there aren't any strident atheists in office in the United States so I don't think anybody would be up to your strident standards on the matter. Paul saying he doesn't think it's appropriate for government to weigh in on the matter seems perfectly fine to me. I can't see any policy issues where the president's opinion on evolution would have an impact besides the the whole whether we should teach it fiasco. He's not against the teaching of evolution and he's not for the teaching "intelligent design"/"creationism"/whatever. It should be like to school and the parents what they teach, at most it should only be a state level issue.

His opinions on the role of government, economics, and the war are obviously way more pressing.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

28 Jun 2011, 11:23 pm

Fnord wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Fnord wrote:
I'd like to see fewer lawyers and more scientists holding elected political offices.

You tend to get some really scary results when you try that. Think about certain scientific movements that we saw at the beginning of the 20th century and their effects on politics.

Such as ... ?


Eugenics.

And sorry, the last part wasn't directed at you. I just don't like multi-quoting posts.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

28 Jun 2011, 11:53 pm

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. Libertarians have far, far too much faith in human rationality for me to be comfortable giving them power.



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.