Cheers, unmet friend. Socking down a shot of Mexican brandy in your honor. Gonna chase it with some vino of indiscriminate origins.

Salute! May happiness be yours, now.

(shudder...good stuff....)

I consulted the "I Ching" today. It told me, and I quote:

"What unnecessary melancholy! You put your imagination and your soul aside and say: 'Look how sad I am!' This is what closes the way. It has no value whatsoever."

A gorilla can't very well buy the book of I Ching a drink, so I am at a loss as to how to pay my compliments.

Hope you're happy. Healthy. Not necessarily in that order.

Above all else...thanks for thinking of me.

You poured a little water on this cactus I call a heart.

It will sustain me....

And I owe you one.

The "conspiracy" portion of our show has been brought to you by the framers of the system. The perpetrators either lauded with appointments or hidden, blameless to a large degree due in large part to the somnambulant and intellectually-challenged who are incapable or otherwise unwilling to see beyond the smoke and mirrors of a lifetime of delusional shit-think.

For me it's simple: I see firsthand the casualties of a pathetic education machine in recent university graduates but more-so the idiots pouring-out high-schools in the U.S. like bilge water. The US produces not critical thinkers or civilized humans, but an increasingly larger number of robots who regurgitate shit they've been told or heard (incorrectly) like trivial pursuit card quips and who are best-suited for the "real" world of wage slavery and compliance with authority when they "graduate."

Education/Indoctrination for the masses and rabble provided by the state, for the good of the machine...which is terminally broken.

While I'd like to think strapping me across the front of the bike would strike terror into the heart of any living thing, I somehow doubt Rambro would be all that impressed.

I'm not sure if you actually disagree or just misunderstand. I have no issue with fantasy, except when it's put in place of reality. I enjoyed LOTR and Hobbit, and I even want to see Pacific Rim (although I must admit I'm embarrassed about it). When fantasy replaces history, history is lost.
When you tell a story that's historical in nature, I (and many others) feel you have an obligation to your audience to teach them the actual history, not to bastardize and fictionalize it with fantasy and Neo. I'm sorry if you feel that way of thinking makes me a jerk, it wasn't what I was going for. I feel it makes me an adult that is unapologetic about being interested in amazing history more than flashy fantasy.
My point about Lincoln has been ignored or misunderstood...would you have liked to see him fight a confederate dragon? Would that have added to, or detracted from the compelling adult story being told? Was Lincoln Vampire Hunter as good a movie as Lincoln in any way? Did the addition of Vampires help you understand the person or time period, or would it have confused you about the historical facts if you knew nothing about the subject(s)?
I understand 300 was not meant to be historical, but it has the same issues with adding fantasy and drama to a well known, historical story. This is a big pet peeve of mine, as I feel most people have a tenuous grasp of history at best, and are not served by being told about historical events in a clearly non-historical, unreal, dramatized, and fantasized manner. It is especially egregious when there is no historical version to point to (in English at least, there is Chushingura in Japanese) when discussing the subject. I read mostly science fiction, and I read both 300 and The Gates of Fire, and while I loved 300, I wish the latter had been made first. I have read many versions of 47 Ronin, and none of them had a dragon or any unrealistic fantasy. Any of them would have made a great action packed adult movie with many lessons to teach rather than just a fun few hours watching Neo save the Asians. To me, adding the fantasy is tantamount to saying the story isn't compelling enough without embellishment, and this one certainly is. To me, it's the same as exaggeration, it's like admitting reality isn't good (or bad) enough to make the point in your argument. Pure fantasy is exempt from this issue.
P.S. sorry for the essay.

Hehe!!!

Thank you for the picture legacy!!! That is soooo...ME!!! A pumpkin against a stormy sky. I saved it to my computer. I'm going to use it as an avatar sometime. So sweet of you to think of me and share it!

Thank you for the power point oritteropo!! So nice of you to think of me!

Hi @Deano! Oh dear, I've deleted the pics for now until I can fix it up again. Thank you for the heads up, and for thinking of me.

That was fantastic, thank you so much for thinking of me!

Absolutely agree.

I would class myself as being introvert. I like my Shell time. I work better in a vacuum and enjoy either the silence or my music without the need for people talking. I operate better locked in my head.

That being said, I can be very extroverted. Not because I am, but because I have to be. I just decided one day that there is no reason to fear being forward. I can operate well in big groups, social groups or with public speaking. I just choose not to care what people think of me and do what ever I want. But this doesn't come naturally, I philosophically "bite the bullet" and dive in. No regrets and life has been good.

But I NEED to go back to my cave where it's comfortable and "enjoy the silence". Often when I do, I have flashbacks of embarrassment for things I've done and said in the heat of the moment. Nothing crazy, just little things like some Infinitesimal part of something that meant nothing to someone else but my conscience pushes forwards and makes a big deal. I spoke without thinking it through and forming my sentences carefully and now I'm kicking myself for it. Meanwhile, no one else even knows (or cares).

So I'm Introverted, but I'm not shy.

Tried the mysterious enigmatic loner thing. Wasn't much fun, because everybody knows that the mysterious kid that hangs out alone is either shy and wants to hide it, or a possible serial killer waiting to happen.

Its also my dating strategy. Brood in some dark corner, look deep and thoughtful. Attract a girl that wants a puzzle project "I wonder what is under that strangers multiple shells/walls/defences". This has worked about twice in all my years.

Anywai, I have a lot of social anxiety. I really care what people I've just met and might never see again think of me. And its stupid. I actually like being with people though. I discovered this after an extended period of solitude and I went pretty stir crazy. The trouble is being with people I dont already know very well is exhausting. Maybe everybody is like that and they just do a better hiding it, but needless to say I am jealous of those that seem to be able to swan around socialising effortlessly.

ps. Does anybody actually enjoy smalltalk? I was under the impression that the whole world accepted it as some sort of necessary evil. It never occurred to me that some might actually like it. Its just probing for a commonality and once you get there its like bam, now we can start a real conversation.

Words are far removed from reality. You don't give me enough for me to know how much of my thinking you understand. You have to take all that I wrote as a whole to get somewhat close to what I am thinking. Picking out a word or sentence that I wrote tells me that you have no interest in understanding me but I don't know that for sure because you aren't giving me anything to go on to let me understand what you are thinking.

I am saying that if quantum theory is correct then evolution has to be correct as well.

"The big bang proves humans" seems to be a wholly different kind of statement that means one event in time proves another event in time.

I am saying that quantum physics and evolution are in essence describing the same process, the same truth, the same idea. People use slightly different words in these two areas but in essence: the interactions shape the whole and the whole shapes the interactions. Nothing is fixed, everything is constantly moving and changing so you cannot simply create a flower by itself nor an atom by itself. Atoms exist (in the sense we think of existence) because of quantum effects interacting and the flower exists because of all the interactions at its scales of time and size.

Calling part of what I wrote about fractals a separate argument seems to indicate exactly what the problem is. It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing or separate arguments. It is about using abstractions (words, sentences) to dance around a big idea in order to communicate that big idea. No one abstraction can describe the whole. at best we can circle around the edges and make the connections which will be a different process for you than for me.

Also I find it weird to be compared to intelligent design. I have never read anything nor seen any videos about intelligent design where their evidence supported their conclusions. It seems that they always present really good reasons why, for example, an eye has to have evolved over time from simple light-sensitive cells to current more complex structures but they present those reasons as evidence that evolution didn't happen but the eye was created whole as we know it now. Same thing with the flagellum thing. Everything they say about those structures tells me they have to have evolved from simpler structures in an ever evolving environment but the conclusion that they say they support is the opposite. In other words, I hope you don't think of me as dumb.

Philosophically speaking I am open to the idea that to an eternal mind the time from the big bang to today is like a flash. What to us would be a thought of an elephant that appears and disappears in a flash in our minds might be similar to the universe as we know it in the mind of the All. Even so, quantum physics and evolution is how that thought process would appear to us.
>> ^lampishthing:

As I said, quantum mechanics provides the mechanism for evolution.
I only object to your use of "proof". I will whole-heartedly agree with "Quantum physics supports evolution", I will not agree with "Quantum physics proves evolution." The argument about the beauty of the fractal nature of interactions progressing scale is akin to an argument used for intelligent design. Argument from beauty
>> ^swedishfriend:
>> ^lampishthing:
Um, no. Quantum mechanics is necessary for mechanisms involved in, say, genetics but to say that quantum physics proves evolution is like saying that the big bang proves humans.>> ^swedishfriend:
Quantum physics also proves evolution.


Quantum effects show that all is probability unless there is interaction. This leads at larger scales to the process we call evolution. No one living cell or organism can be created and exist by itself but rather has to evolve from simpler matter along with the other simpler matter in is environment. Everything relies on everything else would be a basic way of thinking about it. Everything grows out of everything. Experiments of quantum effects at larger scales have shown that what we call reality comes into being by interaction with all else that exists. In the same way living organisms cannot be created out of the blue without all other organisms and matter around it but rather has to grow and be shaped through time and interactions with the nature around it.
If you can hold large enough ideas and interactions in your mind I think you will see that evidence for quantum effects supports the idea of evolution and evidence of evolution supports the idea of quantum effects.
Nature is one thing, the functions of life and evolution fractally rise up out of atomic and quantum effects. If you truly understand fractals, evolution, and quantum effects it is easy to understand them as a whole.

You tell me that you understand science, and were once very scientific, then you drop --excuse me-- a giant turd like this. I could as easily say, "If the Theory of Evolution is correct, then all living creatures are evidence of Theory of Evolution's correctness," and it would still be a meaningless statement because if we already know something is true (as in the premise), then evidence is redundant. It's precisely when we don't know something that evidence becomes useful. This is probably the hardest part about talking to you -- your weak grasp on how science and logic work. And don't take this as an internet ad hom. I'm being straight with you, really. It's not your strong suit. Own it.

Actually, I think that it is you who is demonstrating a weak grasp of logic here. It seems that what I was getting at went right over your head. What you've done here is rip my statement out of its context, and then claimed I was using it in a meaningless way that I never intended. It is a straw man argument, really, and yes you did use ad homs. A giant turd? Saying that its really hard to talk to me because of my weak grasp of science and logic? Come on. I had thought that our dialogue had transcended these kind of petty caricatures.

In context, the statement is designed to get you think outside the box you're in and weigh both sides of the issue equally. It's not an argument in itself. The statement that if God exists, everything that exists is empirical evidence for God is a logically valid statement. If God exists, everything you're looking at right now if proof that He exists. Obviously, this statement by itself doesn't help you determine whether God actually exists or not. You could just as easily say that if God doesn't exist, everything that does exist is proof that He doesn't exist. Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? You haven't addressed this, but simply have taken a leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism. You say, I don't see the Planner, and I didn't see the Planner make this Universe, therefore it is not designed until proven otherwise. The problem with this is that you can't even begin to justify this assumption until you can explain why either possibility is any more likely than the other. You can't say you don't see any empirical evidence because it might be staring you in the face everywhere you look. To analyze how either possibility is more likely than the other you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

Taking it a step deeper, the fact is, you would only expect to see exactly what you do see, because you are in fact a created being. A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him. The crux is though that this environment is also finely tuned. You should expect to see what you do, but you should also be surprised to find that it is finely tuned. It a bit like being taken out for execution in front of a firing squad of 100 expert marksmen 3 feet away, and finding yourself alive after all of them opened fire. You should not be surprised to find yourself alive, because obviously you would have to be alive to find yourself alive, but you should be surprised to find that 100 expert marksmen missed you from 3 feet away. In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe.

What you have on your hands is a Universe full of empirical evidence that it was or wasn't designed. There are only two possibilities; the Universe was either planned or unplanned. Again, how would you tell the difference? What would you expect to see which is different from what you do see? What would make either possibility more likely? That is the point. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Supernatural creation is easier to understand, but just about any other explanation is as or more plausible. When you consider some of the extreme coincidences that are required for us to exist, it stretches the mind. But we've had billions of years to evolve, and if we're talking about the whole universe, it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that? There is no evidence that it is less plausible, you simply assume it is. Sure, if you use your magic genie of time and chance you could imagine just about anything could happen. Scientists agree:

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

The odds of any of this happening by itself far exceeds the number of atoms in the Universe, and there is no actual proof that it actually could happen by itself, but you still believe it to be more plausible. Why is that? In the end, why is it plausible that anything would exist at all? Why isn't everything equally unlikely in the end? Notice what George Wald said? He said time itself performs the *miracles*. He said that because the existence of life is nothing short of a miracle, but even knowing that, you would still say God is implausible. I think these arguments are what is implausible.

Look at how these scientists come to the same conclusions as you have:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

I would take a declarative statement about him, and see what implications it had, what predictions it made, then see if they were testable, either theoretically or practically. Like theoretically if God is omniscient, it means he knows everything, and if I can find an example of something he absolutely cannot know, then I've proven he's not omniscient.

What God says is that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. He also calls the wisdom of this world, foolishness. So God has directly said that it is only by His revelation and not our understanding that we can come to know Him. A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

In any case, it's easy to think of things God doesn't know or can't do. God doesn't know what it feels like to not exist. God can't remember a time that He didn't exist. God can't make a square circle, or an acceptable sin. This doesn't prove anything. A better definition would be, omniscience is knowing everything that can be known, and omnipotence is being able to do everything that can be done.

Or practically, if God answers prayers, then I can test that statistically. Now, you say that God refuses to be tested, but that also means that if people are sincerely praying, but someone else is measuring the effects of those prayers, that God will choose not to answer those prayers, "Sorry! I'm being tested for, so I can't help you out today." This puts the power of denying God's prayers in the hands of scientists -- ridiculous. So there's two tests for God.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason the Jewish people came back to form a country again is because their holy book said they were entitled to do so, divine providence. Like Macbeth likely never would have become king of Scotland if he hadn't been told so by the Weird Sisters.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I found three places where the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted. The first is in Micah 3:11-12, where it simply states that it will happen at some point. It doesn't say when, nor describe any of the circumstances. The second one I found is Daniel 9:24-26, where there's some detail that sounds kinda like Jesus, except that it was supposed to happen within 70 weeks (16 months) of when God spoke to Daniel, roughly 530 years BC. Or if you understand that the signal to begin the 70 weeks hadn't been issued yet, then Jerusalem was to have been build a mere 16 months before it was destroyed by Titus, which clearly isn't the case either. It also predicts the end will be by flood, but it was by fire, and then manual labour of soldiers, if Josephus' account is to be believed (he wasn't impartial).

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all. Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Luk 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

I would have to accept Jesus as messiah before I could accept this argument. And if I had already accepted him as messiah, then the argument would be meaningless, just like the one about the universe as evidence for God's existence.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is. Consider this quotation by Napoleon:

"What a conqueror!--a conqueror who controls humanity at will, and wins to himself not only one nation, but the whole human race. What a marvel! He attaches to himself the human soul with all its energies. And how? By a miracle which surpasses all others. He claims the love of men--that is to say, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain; that which the wisest of men cannot force from his truest friend, that which no father can compel from his children, no wife from her husband, no brother from his brother--the heart. He claims it ; he requires it absolutely and undividedly, and he obtains it instantly.

Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Louis XIV strove in vain to secure this. They conquered the world, yet they had not a single friend, or at all events, they have none any more. Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him; and they are joined to him much more closely than by any ties of blood and by a much more intimate, sacred and powerful communion. He kindles the flame of love which causes one's self-love to die, and triumphs over every other love. Why should we not recognize in this miracle of love the eternal Word which created the world? The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

I have filled multitudes with such passionate devotion that they went to death for me. But God forbid that I should compare the enthusiasm of my soldiers with Christian love. They are as unlike as their causes. In my case, my presence was always necessary, the electric effect of my glance, my voice, my words, to kindle fire in their hearts. And I certainly posses personally the secret of that magic power of taking by storm the sentiments of men; but I was not able to communicate that power to anyone. None of my generals ever learned it from me or found it out. Moreover, I myself do not possess the secret of perpetuating my name and a love for me in their hearts for ever, and to work miracles in them without material means.

Now that I languish here at St Helena, chained upon this rock, who fights, who conquers empires for me? Who still even thinks of me? Who interests himself for me in Europe? Who has remained true to me? That is the fate of all great men. It was the fate of Alexander and Caesar, as it is my own. We are forgotten, and the names of the mightiest conquerors and most illustrious emperors are soon only the subject of a schoolboy's taks. Our exploits come under the rod of a pedantic schoolmaster, who praises or condemns us as he likes.

What an abyss exists between my profound misery and the eternal reign of Christ, who is preached, loved, and worshipped, and live on throughout the entire world. Is this to die? Is it not rather to live eternally? The death of Christ! It is the death of a God."

Nope. Eternal means within all time. It implies that such an entity wouldn't necessarily exist outside of time. Maybe you meant a different word, but "eternal" doesn't describe whoever created time, if words have meaning.

Words do have meaning. Check any dictionary; the definition I used is there:

e·ter·nal/i't?rnl/
Adjective:

Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
(of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

What is this (especially the bits in bold) based on? It this biblical? Your intuition?

Isaiah 29:13

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart

You can give God all of the lip service you want, but He is only interested in what is in your heart.

Yes, the Lord will test your sincerity:

1 Peter 1:6-7

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Also, if God knows everything, then what could he possibly be "testing" for? You only need to test things if you don't already know. And if he does know, the he's just messing with my head, in which case, it's not a test.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

>> ^messenger

>> ^L0cky:

I really liked this and I don't know why


I felt the same way. I couldnt stop watching it. I think for me it might have been the sound effects combined with what item was going to appear next.

>> ^renatojj:

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I have no problem with smaller communities deciding local issues. But certain things are universal and allowing states to decide them is simply wrong. If you were a minority in the south in the 60s, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think it was a good idea to "let the states decide".

>> ^renatojj:
I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Allowing a woman to control her reproductive cycle and to have access to safe medical procedures is absolutely a fundamental human right.

I'm not imposing anything on anyone. FWIW, on a personal level, I hate the idea of abortion as contraception. However, that is not my decision to make, I don't have to carry a child to term and then deal with the consequences. I find it ironic that I have to convince a libertarian that creating a law controlling what a woman does to her own body is a bad thing.

>> ^renatojj:
Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.


And what if every state bans it? What about the case where a woman dies in a hospital because a doctor can't perform a surgery that saves the life of the mother over the child? Should she get out of the operating room and get on a bus then?

>> ^renatojj:

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.
Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

The "Christian" excuse doesn't cut it. It is not a "get out of jail free" card that allows you to suspend your faculties. Obama is a christian and he accepts evolution. Hell, Huntsman is a mormon and he doesn't have a problem with it. How would you feel if he said he didn't believe in gravity?

>> ^renatojj:
I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

I'm not going to get into an AGW debate here. I will simply say that I have yet to meet a global warming skeptic who actually understands the science. Hell, I don't understand the science, but I tend to believe the people who actually researched it over the oil companies.

>> ^renatojj:
Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.
Don't get me wrong, governments need limits on their powers too. There must be balance, but given the choice I would rather the power reside with the elected representatives than the private sector.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting their cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

It's not really about the money. In the grand scheme of things $500 is nothing and I'm pretty sure RP can live without it. It's the principle of the thing. Keeping the money sends a message (rightly or wrongly) of tacit approval. If he doesn't want to give them back the money, fine, give it to an anti-hate charity or something. Anything to make the point that you do not agree with these weak and frightened bigots.

>> ^renatojj:
Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.
What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Nope, but you can outlaw actions. As for your lesbian bar example, I would say they are just as wrong for kicking me out for being a man as I would be for kicking them out for being a lesbian.

The freedom to put up a "no blacks, jews or irish" sign is not a freedom I want to protect.

>> ^renatojj:
Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

Thing is, he wants to do the opposite of protecting freedom. Protecting freedom is an active position. RP wants government to get out of the way. Historically, that never works out for the little guy.

edit: btw, props to you for defending your position rationally and eloquently. Nice to be able to debate this without name-calling or screaming matches, and if I've said anything you take as ad hominem, that was not my intention.

@ChaosEngine, I think it's the opposite. Allowing different sets of rules for smaller communities rather than enforcing them on a larger scale is what counters the inherent injustice of democracy. It gives people more options as to which rules they want to live by and it reduces the potential for damage to society caused by bad rules voted into effect by majorities.

I'm pro-choice on abortion myself, but I'm also pro-choice on communities choosing their own sets of rules. As sure as you are about pro-choice, there are many people as convinced about being pro-life. Who's right? Let freedom sort it out. Btw, abortion is a fundamental human right? Never heard that before, I've heard that life is a fundamental right, but let's not argue. Like I said, I'm pro-choice too but not cool with imposing my pro-choiceness on others.

Also, I'd tell the woman to buy a bus ticket to another state where she can perform her abortion, is that too much to ask? And she can use her compelling story to convince her own community to change their pro-life laws.

I think it takes a lot of critical thinking to challenge the Fed, endorse austrian economics, adopt libertarianism, and dispute our foreign policy. C'mon, what you call lack of critical thinking, is mostly just you disagreeing with his opinions on controversial issues and his christian faith.

Look, I'm an atheist and I believe in evolution. My critical thinking saved me from being a christian. However, if I were still a religious person, I'd value the integrity of my christian ideology, and I'd probably reject evolution too (or maybe try to find a way to fit evolution into the whole Adam & Eve story, idk). I value that integrity in Ron Paul.

I'm not sure about global warming, many people aren't, it's controversial, and it's not always just science, the arguments for or against it can be very ideologically/financially motivated. I haven't made my mind about it, but my personal opinion right now is that humanity is probably influencing the climate, but the effort to reverse this change would probably be too oppressive, costly, or not worth any possible benefit.

Liberals see big businesses and corporations as the biggest and most threatening agents of evil in society, while libertarians think that description applies mostly to governments and to corporations that conspire with governments. The motivation, whether profit oriented or not, is not as important as the means by which evil is accomplished.

Maybe you're right about the Panama Canal, idk

Ron Paul's answer to keeping the money from the white supremacists was, (I'm paraphrasing from an interview) "if I gave them their money back, then I'm the one supporting *their* cause, I'd be giving them money so they can do bad things I don't agree with. If I keep the money instead, I can use it to do good things, like supporting my campaign". You're just pushing it when you say he's being disingenuous, the money was donated with no strings attached.

Look, segregation and racism are very touchy subjects that can very easily be misinterpreted. All I'd say is this: if someone speaks in favor of the freedom to discriminate, that doesn't imply an endorsement of bigotry or of the narrow-mindedness of those with questionable criteria. Paul agrees with Civil Rights as it applies to governments, public institutions, public spaces and schools, etc., but thinks it's wrong to apply these same principles to private businesses.

What happens if you walk into a lesbian bar? Chances are you'll be denied service or kicked out for being a man. How dare they discriminate against your gender?? I don't like racism as much as the next guy, but you can't outlaw an idea, and you can't legislate people's motivations.

Ron Paul wants to be president so that he can show us that it's not the role of the president to decide these many things we think a president should decide, he's not "the decider", he's not our tribal leader, this is supposed to be a free society with rule of law, not a dictatorship. He wants to be president to protect our freedoms.

I agree with you that the constitution should be updated with the times, that's why it's amendable. The problem is that many things we allow the Federal government to do today were never properly amended. So it makes sense to set things straight and start by following the constitution.