Let's kick this hornet's nest.

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, October 6th, 2010 7:20pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter blankfist.

Is that a "Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" (third film of the trilogy) reference?

The music is very distracting in this video.
>> ^blankfist:

Let's kick this hornet's nest.

yeah. i wish i had. It was my first presidential election. =/

[redacted]

Nope. Still dont wish I voted for him.

>> ^dotdude:

Is that a "Girl with the Dragon Tatoo" (third film of the trilogy) reference?
The music is very distracting in this video.
Sounds like a freakin boss battle out of final fantasy

I sooo liked him, but I voted for Nader in 2000 {my bad} and that didn't work out. It ended up seeming to me that the best idea is to vote for the lesser of two evils that might have a chance. If the smartest people in the nation voted for Paul in the last election, he wouldn't win and we'd still be stuck with something we don't want

it's a shame...

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That's not logical. Therefore I can't support him.

>> ^robv:

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That's not logical. Therefor I can't support him.


Paul is usually reasonable, but the "evolution is a theory" is a game killer.

He really doesn't "believe" in evolution? (as if something that is a proven scientific FACT needs belief)

Then it's settled. The man is an idiot. No way around it.

There is no way I would vote for him. Not only because I'm not american, but because I have this weird tendency to not vote for people with severe mental problems. Wait... maybe that's a bit harsh. I mean to say I have a tendency not to vote for ignorant idiots.

>> ^iL0VmyDr:

I sooo liked him, but I voted for Nader in 2000 {my bad} and that didn't work out. It ended up seeming to me that the best idea is to vote for the lesser of two evils that might have a chance.


I hope you don't feel that way. Your vote for Nader was very important for a number of reasons. 1. It put more focus to those outside the bipartisan machine. 2. Also it's very important to vote your conscience and not get persuaded by the bipartisan masses who claim you're throwing away your vote. This is nonsense.

Ron Paul has a lot of ideas that are pretty whacky. Logical yes, but it's a kind of poor man's logic. I always get the feeling that he's one of those pseudo-intellectuals who's fairly smart but likes to dress himself in the trappings of genius and often fools people less intelligent into believing he really is a genius.

>> ^Nebosuke:

>> ^robv:
Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That's not logical. Therefor I can't support him.

Paul is usually reasonable, but the "evolution is a theory" is a game killer.


What game are you playing? Would you rather one that believes in it and never ending war? Also, anyone in medicine believes in evolution, he just doesn't believe it is the complete explanation for life on this planet. (to which many different people hold in fact. Some think that the particles for life come from outer space, or even that those particles were already organic and life didn't originate here...there are many non-evolutionary based ideas here. The debate to the origins of the first life on this planet are not as simple as invoking "evolution". It is still a hot area of debate, and one I take particular interest in.)


"(as if something that is a proven scientific FACT needs belief)"

Firstly, philosophically, belief means any cognitive content held as true. Everything you "think" is, philosophically, what you believe. Belief is your personal, subjective position.

Knowledge is defined as right and true belief. To make the claim something is knowledge, you have to be able to show it is true. Science isn't a method of showing things to be true, but things to be false (you start with a statement "all doves are white", this statement is emperically true until you find you first black dove; the practice of empiricism works on negative evidence). Philosophically speaking, the only path to knowledge is rationalism, not empiricism (as pointed out by Kant's noumena and phenomena). There is no scientific/empirical claim that is irrefutable (meaning certain: without any doubt: can be shown that it can't, and never will, be otherwise (positive evidence)). Certain, without any doubt, is what is meant by the word truth. Knowledge being true (or certain) belief means one can say, logically, that any information gathered empirically isn't knowledge. Is there any scientific fact that hasn't be usurped by later scientific facts? Not even motion has even been certain, which is far less complex than evolution, and we see motion everyday.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

(I largely believe in most of evolution btw)

PS (this comment brought to you by parentheticals...use them love them, overuse them!)

>> ^blankfist:

Your vote for Nader was very important for a number of reasons.

Indeed:

1. Iraq War
   
2. Torture
   
3. Guantanamo
   
4. PATRIOT Act
   
5. Warrantless Wiretapping
   
6. John Roberts
   
7. Samuel Alito
   
8. Dick Cheney
   

^Lame. First, I'm sure he was speaking about the recent election. Either way, it's not like Democrats have been particularly courteous in the realm of civil liberties recently. They, too, seem to enjoy this war, torture, FISA, wiretapping, etc. Exhibit A.

Had 100% of the people who voted Democrat but wanted to vote Green Party instead did so, and 100% of the people who voted Republican but actually wanted to vote Libertarian or Constitution Party also voted that way, the world would be a better place.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ron paul, awesome sauce' to 'ron paul, awesome sauce, republican' - edited by MrFisk

How many politicians give straight answers 100% of the time? Even if you don't like his position on things, we need more "like" him.

>> ^blankfist:

Had 100% of the people who voted Democrat but wanted to vote Green Party instead did so, and 100% of the people who voted Republican but actually wanted to vote Libertarian or Constitution Party also voted that way, the world would be a better place.


I actually totally agree. But I think the way people are voting now makes perfect sense -- and I imagine they do too!

That's why I wanna try to reform elections to try to make strategic voting obsolete. People should be able to say "I want Ralph Nader to win, but if he doesn't, I'd rather have Gore than Bush", and have the election results actually play out that way.

"That's why I wanna" - Every central planning statist's sentence begins that way.

As a point of information, I voted for Kerry in 2004 because I was terrified of what four more years of Bush would mean for us. I was told "if you don't vote for Kerry, you'll be throwing your vote away." The truth is, Bush won again, and sure those four years weren't ice cream and puppies, but we lived through it.

The point is, at some point or another we have to stop with this chicken little 'sky is falling' attitude and vote our conscience. I propose we do that every election. I'd love to see the Democratic and Republican base shrink drastically.

>> ^blankfist:

"That's why I wanna" - Every central planning statist's sentence begins that way.

Actually, it's a common way to segue from description of a problem to a proposed solution.

My tummy is grumbling, that's why I wanna go get lunch.

My balls itch, that's why I want you to wiggle your chin.

>> ^blankfist:

As a point of information, I voted for Kerry in 2004 because I was terrified of what four more years of Bush would mean for us. I was told "if you don't vote for Kerry, you'll be throwing your vote away." The truth is, Bush won again, and sure those four years weren't ice cream and puppies, but we lived through it.

So why not stay home, if voting never matters? I'd prefer if you, and everyone who believed as you do followed that advice.

>> ^blankfist:
The point is, at some point or another we have to stop with this chicken little 'sky is falling' attitude and vote our conscience.

Well, here's the thing. Consider a game of football. Every time you take possession of the football, you want to get it into the end zone. Does that mean you should always "vote your principles", and throw passes to the end zone, no matter what? Or do you look at where you are on the field, think about the kind of defense the other team has, and come up with a play that you think will get the ball as far down field as you can?

Most people who play football, and most people who vote, think backing the play that will bring them the best result is the play to back.

I vote based on what I think will help bring about something closer to what I want than where we are. I would love to change things so all I had to do was show up each year and say "I want us to be there", and then let the process calculate the vector sum of our preferences in some more accurate manner, and give us a congress that can implement policies that line up with the result of that vector sum.

Instead it's a series of zero-sum competitions, and that's what's causing a lot of the problem.

@NetRunner: "So why not stay home, if voting never matters? I'd prefer if you, and everyone who believed as you do followed that advice."

You're being obtuse, again. Voting is important. Voting against your conscience because of fear, that's emotion winning over reason, and that's what I take issue with.

Vote. But vote your conscience. Stop trying to derail the subject.

@blankfist, text comments really need a sarcasm mark. That was tongue in cheek.

My point is that I am voting my conscience. I'm just basing my actual vote on a pragmatic analysis of what vote will have the best chance of bringing about the policy outcome my conscience demands.

In the specific case of the 2008 presidential race, I didn't find any of the alternatives to Obama on the actual ballot appealing. Even if I had, I would've rather voted for Obama, who seemed to have a good chance of winning, and the skills to lead effectively, over a candidate whose platform matched my ideal in every possible way, but had a slim chance of winning, and seemed to lack the leadership skills to build a coalition to pass his agenda.

I say that is voting your conscience, at least the way voting works today.

The difference is voting with your heart or your head, so to speak.

Voting for Obama is the headvote, since he has a chance of winning, then "the game" is to get the best of the two big candidates. Voting with your heart, is voting for whoever you like the best, no matter their chance of winning. Some times those two are not mutually exclusive, those are good times.
>> ^NetRunner:

@blankfist, text comments really need a sarcasm mark. That was tongue in cheek.
My point is that I am voting my conscience. I'm just basing my actual vote on a pragmatic analysis of what vote will have the best chance of bringing about the policy outcome my conscience demands.
In the specific case of the 2008 presidential race, I didn't find any of the alternatives to Obama on the actual ballot appealing. Even if I had, I would've rather voted for Obama, who seemed to have a good chance of winning, and the skills to lead effectively, over a candidate whose platform matched my ideal in every possible way, but had a slim chance of winning, and seemed to lack the leadership skills to build a coalition to pass his agenda.
I say that is voting your conscience, at least the way voting works today.

why do people always have to put this annoying , loud, fucking music in these things??

>> ^EMPIRE:

He really doesn't "believe" in evolution? (as if something that is a proven scientific FACT needs belief)
Then it's settled. The man is an idiot. No way around it.
There is no way I would vote for him. Not only because I'm not american, but because I have this weird tendency to not vote for people with severe mental problems. Wait... maybe that's a bit harsh. I mean to say I have a tendency not to vote for ignorant idiots.


Not standing behind (or however you want to phrase it) evolution infers a lot about a person. Primarily that that person is willing to sacrifice some degree of scientific reason in place of faith. And generally that's not what I look for in my elected officials.

A large portion of the people I know wanted to vote for him but, ultimately, he wasn't a candidate.

A lot of people thought his ideas were too extreme (recalling all troops, eliminating income tax, etc) but I felt, overall, his choices were playing it safe. Settle down, reel things in, get back to basics. We're going in all directions right now and failing at just about everything. I think it's better to do a few things well than to do everything poorly.

Also, with every election or vote, people act like it's a permanent decision that can never be changed. Can a lot of damage be done in 4 years? Absolutely. Can the entire country be destroyed in 4 years? No. As bad as Bush was, we only got to where we are through decades of poor leadership.

Ron Paul not believing in evolution is disappointing but in the end it doesn't really make much difference. All viable presidential candidates are irrational, else they'd be atheists and, thus, not viable.

I believe 4 years of RP would have been the best of potential options given the problems we're facing. After those 4 years are up, we could evaluate again and decide if 4 more years is still the best option.

>> ^robv:

>> ^EMPIRE:
He really doesn't "believe" in evolution? (as if something that is a proven scientific FACT needs belief)
Then it's settled. The man is an idiot. No way around it.
There is no way I would vote for him. Not only because I'm not american, but because I have this weird tendency to not vote for people with severe mental problems. Wait... maybe that's a bit harsh. I mean to say I have a tendency not to vote for ignorant idiots.

Not standing behind (or however you want to phrase it) evolution infers a lot about a person. Primarily that that person is willing to sacrifice some degree of scientific reason in place of faith. And generally that's not what I look for in my elected officials.


Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Max Planck, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, ect...what a bunch of morons.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^iL0VmyDr:
I sooo liked him, but I voted for Nader in 2000 {my bad} and that didn't work out. It ended up seeming to me that the best idea is to vote for the lesser of two evils that might have a chance.

I hope you don't feel that way. Your vote for Nader was very important for a number of reasons. 1. It put more focus to those outside the bipartisan machine. 2. Also it's very important to vote your conscience and not get persuaded by the bipartisan masses who claim you're throwing away your vote. This is nonsense.


No voting for Nader is just throwing your vote away. Just like it doesn't matter that much if you vote for Obama or McCain. Just one will be unapologetically war mongerlike...and the other will do it more covertly. It's just like Reagan when he couldn't do what he wanted he went underground and used proxy armies to fight his wars and rain terror down upon South America.

To the idiots who spout the mantra "he doesn't believe in evolution", hey, your car doesn't either, but you use it because it beats walking.

>> ^gwiz665:

The difference is voting with your heart or your head, so to speak.

Head vs. heart is definitely a much more apt description of what we're talking about.

My point to @blankfist is that there are electoral reforms that would allow people to effectively get to cast both votes. Things like instant runoff voting would let you vote for the purist candidate with no support, but still let you contribute to the contest between more popular candidates.

Weeell, as Newton said "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants" if you don't have any shoulders to stand on, it's easily forgivable to believe things which are not true.

By now we have a nice big giant to stand on, so let's do that.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^robv:
>> ^EMPIRE:
He really doesn't "believe" in evolution? (as if something that is a proven scientific FACT needs belief)
Then it's settled. The man is an idiot. No way around it.
There is no way I would vote for him. Not only because I'm not american, but because I have this weird tendency to not vote for people with severe mental problems. Wait... maybe that's a bit harsh. I mean to say I have a tendency not to vote for ignorant idiots.

Not standing behind (or however you want to phrase it) evolution infers a lot about a person. Primarily that that person is willing to sacrifice some degree of scientific reason in place of faith. And generally that's not what I look for in my elected officials.

Gottfried Leibniz, Isaac Newton, Max Planck, James Clerk Maxwell, Michael Faraday, ect...what a bunch of morons.

Agreed!
>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^gwiz665:
The difference is voting with your heart or your head, so to speak.
Head vs. heart is definitely a much more apt description of what we're talking about.
My point to @blankfist is that there are electoral reforms that would allow people to effectively get to cast both votes. Things like instant runoff voting would let you vote for the purist candidate with no support, but still let you contribute to the contest between more popular candidates.

>> ^robv:

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That's not logical. Therefore I can't support him.


When an ALU runs for congress let us know.

His free market ideas are silly. A free market would only work in a world without greed and corruption. As we have both of those in spades, a free market is a fool's folly.

>> ^robv:

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That's not logical. Therefore I can't support him.


But if someone is a good politician their religious beliefs would have no effect on their policies. I've never kept track of Ron Paul but if he didn't bring his religion into his campaign perhaps he would not bring it into his time as president, if he was elected. All of these clips are about following the constitution, especially with regards to war, and pulling out of Iraq. During the clip starting at 9:49 he even criticizes the current government, at that time, for being too fundamentalist, sinister, and fear mongers.

>> ^Payback:

His free market ideas are silly. A free market would only work in a world without greed and corruption. As we have both of those in spades, a free market is a fool's folly.


I support your belief on this, but I would like to add that I don't think you can safely make that assertion without it being speculative. There's no proof a free market couldn't work but only in the absence of greed and corruption.

Greed and corruption is the current system. A free market would allow the marketplace to correct itself, which is drastically different from what we have now which is most certainly not a free market but a heavily regulated market rife with greed and corruption!

Hurp Durp

Adding video to channels (Worldaffairs) - requested by Seric.

Ron Paul: Because 5-year-olds should be allowed to work in coal mines!

Ron Paul 2012!

>> ^robv:

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That's not logical. Therefore I can't support him.


Perhaps the dumbest thing I've heard all week, and that's saying something. Who gives a shit what his position on evolution is? Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

Because a refusal to acknowledge the overwhelming weight of evidence provided by over a hundred years of research is not a positive trait in one who wants to set policy for the country. It's really that simple. -I- for one, prefer my policies to be strongly based on evidence and not just wishes.
>> ^Xax:

>> ^robv:
Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. That's not logical. Therefore I can't support him.

Perhaps the dumbest thing I've heard all week, and that's saying something. Who gives a shit what his position on evolution is? Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.