Interesting, but also *nsfw

This video has been flagged as being Not Suitable For Work - declared nsfw by radx.

Let's start a *quality discussion.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Ron Paul waving his Liberty Wand(tm) is NSFW?

As much as I'd like for someone that agrees with me on every issue to be president, it's simply not going to happen. RP is the lesser evil.

This guy is an idiot. He obviously has no clue that no matter RP's personal beliefs, he doesn't let them affect his policy making.

I agree with him. Yes, Ron Paul is very consistent in his ideas and what he defends, but he also has some really stupid ideas. Tea-Party stupid.

edit: I mean... look at his son. The apple doesn't usually fall very far from the tree (with exceptions of course)

As far as I understand, were Ron Paul to be elected, the big change that would happen is the return of all the troops to the US. I think most of the other policies could get blocked in various ways but the end of the wars would really happen.

A vote for Ron Paul is really about ending the wars.

This guy is like the Atheist version of Rob Bell: He's a charismatic faux-hipster who can write himself a good speech and make a video of it... but that doesn't make anything he says correct.

His facts are incorrect, his quotes are out of context, and his anger on this subject - and many others - seems to exist solely because he needs something new and controversial to whine about so he can get views.

If you can't tell, I think this dude is a crock. (Maybe should be in politics?)

oh wait... Ron Paul is a creationist? I didn't even know that. I thought he actually had a functioning brain. Fuck that. Ron Paul is an idiot like his son.

As soon as you start playing the part of the other side using the "I'm just some dumbass" voice you lose credibility in your argument.

I can't seem to remember people getting upset when RP is asked a tough question. Most RP supporters are upset because he isn't given the time, the coverage, and the respect they think he deserves. Answering tough questions is what he is actually good at. Unlike the other politicians who just use tough questions to launch into their talking points.

I would down vote this if I believed in down voting.

Haha, this guy's awesome, cutting through the bullshit like a boss(tm).

He doesn't have to believe everything YOU believe to be good at his job. As long as he doesn't make policies on it.

Ooops. Thanks for the heads-up.
Edited and Corrected.


>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^EMPIRE:
I agree with him. Yes, Ron Paul is very consistent in his ideas and what he defends, but he also has some really stupid ideas. Tea-Party stupid.
edit: I mean... look at his son. The apple doesn't usually fall very far from the apple (with exceptions of course)

The apple doesn't fall very far from the apple!

I would actually be interested in seeing this article... he alleges... I'm hardly a RP supporter but i would be shocked if he was publicly endorsing a church/state union.

In the end this guys seems like the same loudmouth asshole either pointing out the obvious or ignoring it depending on his mood that day... Even when i agree with him, i still can't stand listening to him.

I agree with lots of video guy's premises, but not his conclusion.

Ron Paul does have wacky, wacky views on all sorts of crap. I disagree with him on most things. However, he's the only candidate who agrees with me on some important things - ie. sustainable foreign policy - and those few things are important enough to outweigh the other stuff (most of which, as others have said, he wouldn't be able to act on anyways).

In short: Ron Paul is wacky + deluded + currently the best option. It doesn't take insanity or fanboyism to say that, all it takes is a survey of the other candidates' positions.

He's marginally the best item on a buffet of crap (not that I'm picking anyways - I'm Canadian - but still).

All he's saying, is that he notices people compromising their beliefs and contradicting their own conclusions because of who said something. I think there is something bigger here to be said about the human psyche and how easily we can be persuaded.

He is acting, however, as if we have had a long line of secular presidents and Ron Paul is the first Christian one we've seen. When in reality, Ron Paul's beliefs won't set us back socially but a little if at all.

oh and as far as I know cancer isn't "life". AIDS is though...

He linked it in his video description, or "right down there", as he put it.>> ^Januari:

I would actually be interested in seeing this article... he alleges... I'm hardly a RP supporter but i would be shocked if he was publicly endorsing a church/state union.

Not understand Evolutioning is a serious fail. I wouldn't trust anybody to run a country that can't grasp the most basic of scientific facts. I like Ron Paul, he's idealistic and honest which are rare traits it seems, especially in politics, but ya, if you can't understand science I aint interested.

This guys going to vote for Michelle Bachman.

Thank You, Blockbuster clerk, for your outstanding analysis. The swingset really lends credibility.

Paraphrasing you, RP is usually opposed for his upfront for-all-to-see policies, so you must be here to bat cleanup for the piddling stuff.

Vote for your closet atheist Hawaiian and proceed to Baltic Avenue.

I like how you use Hawaiian as though it was synonymous with foreign.>> ^quantumushroom:

Thank You, Blockbuster clerk, for your outstanding analysis. The swingset really lends credibility.
Paraphrasing you, RP is usually opposed for his upfront for-all-to-see policies, so you must be here to bat cleanup for the piddling stuff.
Vote for your closet atheist Hawaiian and proceed to Baltic Avenue.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Let's start a quality discussion.

>> Let's start a *quality discussion.

How about this guy is a dingleberry, and his superior intellect will lead him to vote for that hagfish from the midwest..

This video has already declared quality - ignoring quality request by deathcow.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ron, Paul, Election, Pro Life, Creationist, Liberty, amazing atheist' to 'Ron Paul, Election, Pro Life, Creationist, Liberty, amazing atheist' - edited by xxovercastxx

Can a man who views a 2-5,000 year old anthology of primitive fairy tales as more compelling than a scientific fact be trusted with the highest position of power in the land?

>> ^rottenseed:

oh and as far as I know cancer isn't "life". AIDS is though...


Cancer is your own cells growing out of control, so yeah, it's life. It's really rather similar to early stages of fetal development.

For awhile I was using "Kenyanesque Hawaiian" which is doubly accurate since Barry was born in Hawaii and his fadda was Kenyan, but that led to many cases of liberal borborygmus.

The Hawaiian Dunce IS a foreigner when it comes to American values.

And I had an atheist friend tell me he thinks Barry is a closet atheist. Who here agrees with that statement?


>> ^KnivesOut:

I like how you use Hawaiian as though it was synonymous with foreign.>> ^quantumushroom:
Thank You, Blockbuster clerk, for your outstanding analysis. The swingset really lends credibility.
Paraphrasing you, RP is usually opposed for his upfront for-all-to-see policies, so you must be here to bat cleanup for the piddling stuff.
Vote for your closet atheist Hawaiian and proceed to Baltic Avenue.

Don't forget that he's a black guy! He clearly can't be American, or understand American values, since he's not an American!

How could he be? He's brown!>> ^quantumushroom:

For awhile I was using "Kenyanesque Hawaiian" which is doubly accurate since Barry was born in Hawaii and his fadda was Kenyan, but that led to many cases of liberal borborygmus.
The Hawaiian Dunce IS a foreigner when it comes to American values.
And I had an atheist friend tell me he thinks Barry is a closet atheist. Who here agrees with that statement?

BECAUSE CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN DOING A SPLENDED JOB AT BEING PRESIDENT!>> ^quantumushroom:

Thank You, Blockbuster clerk, for your outstanding analysis. The swingset really lends credibility.
Paraphrasing you, RP is usually opposed for his upfront for-all-to-see policies, so you must be here to bat cleanup for the piddling stuff.
Vote for your closet atheist Hawaiian and proceed to Baltic Avenue.

This is nothing new from every president before him. As long as his policies are good, I can deal with it. If there were a nice antitheist that had the same political views as Paul, he'd get my vote instead, but eh.. I compromise.

(I can't really vote over there, but you know, where I would vote if I wasn't a convicted felon).

>> ^MarineGunrock:

This guy is an idiot. He obviously has no clue that no matter RP's personal beliefs, he doesn't let them affect his policy making.


Fucking I am glad to give this a 15 mark and this fucking douche cock can burn in hell (Oh, that's right, he doesn't believe in hell...fucktard still.)

And yes, I am drunk!

>> ^EMPIRE:

I agree with him. Yes, Ron Paul is very consistent in his ideas and what he defends, but he also has some really stupid ideas. Tea-Party stupid.
edit: I mean... look at his son. The apple doesn't usually fall very far from the tree (with exceptions of course)


If RP was Tea Party, then I agree with you. He isn't. You need to actually research him (No dismantle ss, gay rights? Yes sir! Um, wars? Stop em. Drug war? Stop em...) Bout as far from the Party as you can get.

>> ^ghark:

Haha, this guy's awesome, cutting through the bullshit like a boss(tm).

How so?

He's a fucking creationist. I have ZERO respect for anyone who still hangs on to that stupid, asinine, moronic, ignorant, stupid (needs to be said twice) belief.

>> ^jmzero:

I agree with lots of video guy's premises, but not his conclusion.
Ron Paul does have wacky, wacky views on all sorts of crap. I disagree with him on most things. However, he's the only candidate who agrees with me on some important things - ie. sustainable foreign policy - and those few things are important enough to outweigh the other stuff (most of which, as others have said, he wouldn't be able to act on anyways).
In short: Ron Paul is wacky + deluded + currently the best option. It doesn't take insanity or fanboyism to say that, all it takes is a survey of the other candidates' positions.
He's marginally the best item on a buffet of crap (not that I'm picking anyways - I'm Canadian - but still).


And only his best policies will be supported by the legislator... yes, I can't spell right now and yes, I am making a lot of comments quickly...vacation and drinking does that.

I want to have your babies.

Wow, it's like you're all answering without watching the video at all.

"He obviously has no clue that no matter RP's personal beliefs, he doesn't let them affect his policy making."
Which he expressly counters

"As far as I understand, were Ron Paul to be elected, the big change that would happen is the return of all the troops to the US. "
Which he expressly counters

"I would actually be interested in seeing this article... he alleges"
Which he links to, and which is a pretty horrible read btw.

You are all demonstrating EXACTLY what he's talking about.

Oh, and really top notch those who chose to criticize him sitting on a swing for fuck's sake, you really haven't got anything useful to add have you?

Bravo.

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/08/18/who-will-be-the-president-of-funnybooks

The Cult is mentioned on this blog.

"As far as I understand, were Ron Paul to be elected, the big change that would happen is the return of all the troops to the US. "... Which he expressly counters...


No, he doesn't "expressly counter" this - he pretty much agrees with it. I mean, he says it in a stupid voice for a while, but then he admits that Paul has good ideas on foreign policy. His only counter is that those ideas aren't worth regression on social and economic policy.

To which my counter would be that the social stuff won't happen, nobody will support libertarian wackiness on, say, health care or whatever - and that the US economy would be hugely better off if it wasn't financing a ridiculous military. Even after whatever damage Paul might do in terms of implementing bizarre economic theory (his economic ideas are nonsense), the economy would still be a net win

(To be fair, I could certainly be wrong here; it would depend on what kind of trip Congress would let him take. The mature financial climate, for whatever its problems, is a real positive the US has going right now - and a source of a lot of money - and it would be tragic to lose that on some gold standard adventure or something.)

Of course, I'd rather have the good without the crazy, but who else is going to make the right decision on foreign policy? I really thought Obama was going to take military cutting seriously, and I believe he's had (past tense) the chance and didn't take it. And there's certainly no other major Republican candidate likely to stem this bleeding.

Really? The Race Card is all you have?


>> ^KnivesOut:

Don't forget that he's a black guy! He clearly can't be American, or understand American values, since he's not an American!
How could he be? He's brown!>> ^quantumushroom:
For awhile I was using "Kenyanesque Hawaiian" which is doubly accurate since Barry was born in Hawaii and his fadda was Kenyan, but that led to many cases of liberal borborygmus.
The Hawaiian Dunce IS a foreigner when it comes to American values.
And I had an atheist friend tell me he thinks Barry is a closet atheist. Who here agrees with that statement?

Who posted this idiot?

is my arm a living thing?>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^rottenseed:
oh and as far as I know cancer isn't "life". AIDS is though...

Cancer is your own cells growing out of control, so yeah, it's life. It's really rather similar to early stages of fetal development.

>> ^rottenseed:

is my arm a living thing?>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^rottenseed:
oh and as far as I know cancer isn't "life". AIDS is though...

Cancer is your own cells growing out of control, so yeah, it's life. It's really rather similar to early stages of fetal development.



And if it's not, does that make you a necrophiliac?

The problem with this guy is that he thinks "atheist" RP supporters are blinded by some of the things that RP believes personally. We know he isn't the "perfect" candidate...but that candidate doesn't exist. If you really want a president that stands for personal freedom and liberty and think we need to end these wars and dramatically scale down our military he is really the only choice we have from the two major parties.

And just because you use a "stupid voice" to represent the other side doesn't by default make the other side stupid...it's a weak tactic for someone with a weak argument.

If you want a president that agrees with you on every issue, I think you might have to write in your own name. >> ^DrewNumberTwo:

As much as I'd like for someone that agrees with me on every issue to be president, it's simply not going to happen. RP is the lesser evil.

He does not believe in evolution. Doesn't that cast even the slightest shadow on his thought processes? Wouldn't the way he reasons and reaches conclusions affect the decisions he makes as president?

I'm a big RP fan, but you're absolutely right. I don't get why he believes that crap. But as an atheist, to me his silly religious beliefs aren't too much worse than anyone else's silly religious beliefs, and there's little chance that a serious atheist candidate will emerge.

>> ^chtierna:

He does not believe in evolution. Doesn't that cast even the slightest shadow on his thought processes? Wouldn't the way he reasons and reaches conclusions affect the decisions he makes as president?

>> ^chtierna:

He does not believe in evolution. Doesn't that cast even the slightest shadow on his thought processes? Wouldn't the way he reasons and reaches conclusions affect the decisions he makes as president?


He is against abortion but pro-choice. How? He views freedom above his personal preferences... that's how wise men do it...

If RP was an athiest... do you think he would come out with it and have absolutely no chance at reelection ever? I think all politicians are "Christians" in the USA

>> ^Grimm:

The problem with this guy is that he thinks "atheist" RP supporters are blinded by some of the things that RP believes personally. We know he isn't the "perfect" candidate...but that candidate doesn't exist. If you really want a president that stands for personal freedom and liberty and think we need to end these wars and dramatically scale down our military he is really the only choice we have from the two major parties.
And just because you use a "stupid voice" to represent the other side doesn't by default make the other side stupid...it's a weak tactic for someone with a weak argument.


This.

>> ^deathcow:

If RP was an athiest... do you think he would come out with it and have absolutely no chance at reelection ever? I think all politicians are "Christians" in the USA


Well the congress is mostly Christian except for the 39 Jewish, 3 Buddhist, 2 Muslim and 1 Atheist members of congress. And the 6 others who are not affiliated with any specific religion.

http://pewforum.org/government/faith-on-the-hill--the-religious-composition-of-the-112th-congress.aspx


But is there actually any reason to doubt Ron Paul's professed religious beliefs? I thought much of his appeal was in not cynically bullshitting in order to pander to voters.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*findthumb

A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by dag.

As far as I know, we atheists are not connected to any religion.>> ^entr0py:

>> ^deathcow:
If RP was an athiest... do you think he would come out with it and have absolutely no chance at reelection ever? I think all politicians are "Christians" in the USA

Well the congress is mostly Christian except for the 39 Jewish, 3 Buddhist, 2 Muslim and 1 Atheist members of congress. And the 6 others who are not affiliated with any specific religion.
http://pewforum.org/government/faith-on-
the-hill--the-religious-composition-of-the-112th-congress.aspx

But is there actually any reason to doubt Ron Paul's professed religious beliefs? I thought much of his appeal was in not cynically bullshitting in order to pander to voters.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^ghark:
Haha, this guy's awesome, cutting through the bullshit like a boss(tm).

How so?


Did you not watch the video?

Atheism counts as a religion for the question "what religion do you belong to" because "I don't believe in a higher power" is a significantly different answer than "I haven't really thought about it" or "I refuse to tell you."

>> ^Smugglarn:

As far as I know, we atheists are not connected to any religion.>> ^entr0py:
Well the congress is mostly Christian except for the 39 Jewish, 3 Buddhist, 2 Muslim and 1 Atheist members of congress. And the 6 others who are not affiliated with any specific religion.

Actually...the correct answer to that question from an atheist is "none of them". So atheism doesn't "count as a religion" for that question or any other.>> ^davidraine:

Atheism counts as a religion for the question "what religion do you belong to" because "I don't believe in a higher power" is a significantly different answer than "I haven't really thought about it" or "I refuse to tell you."
>> ^Smugglarn:
As far as I know, we atheists are not connected to any religion.>> ^entr0py:
Well the congress is mostly Christian except for the 39 Jewish, 3 Buddhist, 2 Muslim and 1 Atheist members of congress. And the 6 others who are not affiliated with any specific religion.

Just to clarify the pew study I linked to.

The lone atheist:
"In 2007, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a Unitarian who joined Congress in 1973, became the first and so far only member of Congress to publicly declare that he does not believe in a Supreme Being. He was re-elected in 2010."

In the study he was counted as "other faith" for being a Unitarian.

6 publicly unaffiliated religious types:
"Six members of the new Congress (about 1%) do not specify a religious affiliation, and no members describe themselves as unaffiliated."

I think it's safe to say those 6 members are witches.

Ummm... fact check please? And I quote Ron Paul: “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”

You don't usually strike me as dumb, so I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.

This is exactly the point of the video. You presume that because he is "pro-liberty," he supports liberty in the same areas you do. The fact is, it is impossible to support liberty universally. The gold standard is government price fixing. Deregulation of financial markets strips me of my freedom to operate in transparent markets. The defunding or privatization of infrastructure, well, that couldn't possibly impede my freedoms at all could it?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^chtierna:
He does not believe in evolution. Doesn't that cast even the slightest shadow on his thought processes? Wouldn't the way he reasons and reaches conclusions affect the decisions he makes as president?

He is against abortion but pro-choice. How? He views freedom above his personal preferences... that's how wise men do it...

Roe vs Wade issue is about federal/state... Paul thinks the States should have the choice to make their own laws--and if they do, then abortion will be legal since all one would have to do is cross into another state to get the procedure done.

Oh, I noted he hated the "slippery slope." But still, in theory, it would make it harder in some circumstances (For the poorer class) to get abortions done since gas isn't cheap.

So I stand by my reasoning. Not just that, but when/if Roe Vs Wade is overturned and abortion is ruled illegal, then you must abide by the lawful decision of a court. Paul hates that.

>> ^bmacs27:

Ummm... fact check please? And I quote Ron Paul: “I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.”
You don't usually strike me as dumb, so I'll give you a chance to explain yourself.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^chtierna:
He does not believe in evolution. Doesn't that cast even the slightest shadow on his thought processes? Wouldn't the way he reasons and reaches conclusions affect the decisions he makes as president?

He is against abortion but pro-choice. How? He views freedom above his personal preferences... that's how wise men do it...

@Lawdeedaw Really? So this sounds like the words of a guy that values the personal liberties of the mother over a zygote?

"There is something that precedes liberty, and that is life," Paul said. "If we are to defend liberty … you have to understand where that liberty, and where that life comes from. It does not come from the government, it comes from our creator."

Seems to me the "right to life" precedes liberty, and I suspect he would legislate accordingly. Not to mention his introduction of the "sanctity of life act" in 2005 which would have defined life as beginning with conception, and his votes in support of a federal ban on partial birth abortions in 2000 and 2003.

Funny, that sounds an awful lot like every other anti-choice politician's policy making. I didn't realize "choice" was such an infringement on "liberty."

>> ^bmacs27:

@Lawdeedaw Really? So this sounds like the words of a guy that values the personal liberties of the mother over a zygote?
"There is something that precedes liberty, and that is life," Paul said. "If we are to defend liberty … you have to understand where that liberty, and where that life comes from. It does not come from the government, it comes from our creator."
Seems to me the "right to life" precedes liberty, and I suspect he would legislate accordingly. Not to mention his introduction of the "sanctity of life act" in 2005 which would have defined life as beginning with conception, and his votes in support of a federal ban on partial birth abortions in 2000 and 2003.
Funny, that sounds an awful lot like every other anti-choice politician's policy making. I didn't realize "choice" was such an infringement on "liberty."


Sigh---even if I am wrong on this issue it doesn't make I dumb btw. Nor would it you.

Paul also doesn't believe in the death penalty--but that's again up to states in his opinion. He doesn't like cocaine but it's not his right to take it from you to decide.

Are his policies sound or sane? No less than the other "candidates." I am not saying he is god nor am I saying that all his policies are golden (I.e., the gold standard.) I would still suspect his policies are better than liars who have no real policies...

Essentially I feel the exact same as Paul in this matter except I don't think life begins in the womb (I feel it begins when intellect starts; i.e., when stimuli can be reacted to.) And, just like Paul, I would never, ever take away a woman's choice on abortions.

Below is a conservative site blasting Paul for his decision to put his personal feelings aside and give choice...

http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/07/12/ron-paul-wrong-on-abortion-its-a-human-right/

If the cavemen-conservatives hate him, I like him.

@Lawdeedaw I abhor abortion. I wish they never happened. Safe and rare are laudable goals, but I also agree that there is a second human being's life to consider. If it were possible, and I were at risk of losing a child to an abortion, I would wish I could magically grow a womb and carry the baby to term. Still, this argument has to do with the facts of his voting record. He did vote to ban partial birth abortions at the federal level. Further he advanced legislation that would have granted legal personhood to a zygote. I sincerely doubt it would have taken long for every abortion provider in the country to be guilty of murder had it passed. That is, he was perfectly prepared to take away a woman's right to choose.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Let's start a quality discussion.


lol... then after the vid cut, the big fat ugly pasty white guy broke the swingset with his fat ass

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

If I had to vote Republican I would vote for Ron Paul. How's that for a ringing endorsement? I love his stance on the Military and if he could carry it out it would be a seriously Good Thing™.

The personal religious stuff? At this point I don't really give a shit about anymore - as I've realised that ALL politicians are required to become publicly religious very early in their political career. It's just a matter of demographics - and shouldn't be a reflection on their critical thinking skills. I'm not convinced Obama is really a Christian. (He's a Muslin!)

I like this video. It raises a lot of good points.

But I confess that I'm even wondering if four years of Ron Paul might not be better than four more years of Obama or one of the other GOP contenders.

Still a year to go.

Why are we campaigning a year in advance?

Shouldn't there be a law against that?