You can check out Ron Paul interviews from the 80's where his position is exactly the same on every single issue except one
I'm not sure that voting for someone who hasn't changed his mind on anything in 20-25 years is such a good idea. You don't care about the validity of the idea? My, if he hasn't changed his mind recently, surely he's been wrong all along, an idea that was sound 25 years ago sure couldn't be right now! That's unpossible!
I made no factual statements about Dr. Paul, or his policies, for you to call into question. I stated my opinion of the man. So you were neither misinformed nor are you engaging in a voluntary act of misinformation? That leaves option C: You're an idiot: Dr. Paul knows the limitations of the office of president of the united states of America, that's a fact.
CNN has pictures of every candidate smiling EXCEPT Ron Paul.
...
!
And their pie chart on TV during the elections has the name of all the other republicans hovering besides their red slice, but Ron only gets an anonymous black slice. Particularly annoying when the slice is the same size as Giulianis'.
Hell, even the canadian broadcasting corporation doesn't mention him. They're having a big super tuesday news-o-rama, and they have 2 dems and 3 reps on display. Guess who doesn't exist according to Harper's CBC?
You forgot the best Ron Paul meme: "The mainstream media is biased against him!" It takes a special kind of idiot not to see the bias. Paul rakes in more votes than Giuliani in every primary: Paul excluded from debate, not Giuliani. Paul finishes second in Nevada, the big board has 3 other people (position one, three and four) on it. CNN has pictures of every candidate smiling EXCEPT Ron Paul. Etc.
With all this very obvious bias, you manage to think the bias isn't really there? You're special.
If a non-Christian harms you, you are to accept the abuse. Love your enemy. That's pre-9/11 theology. Now Jesus says "preemptive war" is the key. George Bush heard it straight from god himself, dontcha know.
I've not been misinformed. I've listened to the man talk. This is my considered opinion based on first hand information. Since I heard him say exactly the opposite of what you claim, I at first assumed that you had been misinformed. I now see that you are simply telling outright lies. My mistake.
Despite his obvious popularity among heavy users of the internet, Ron Paul has no shot at the White House. National polls have his support in the low single digits. It's not going to happen. Fuck Frank Luntz! Polls are a tool for manipulation, not a measure of reality.
I hate Hillary because when deregulation in Ohio caused the Great Blackout of 2003, she was really quick to blame Canada (blame Canada, with their beady little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies).
Best description of Ron Paul I've heard: Some things he says make a lot of sense, some things he says scare the hell out of me. He is way too radical to become president. He is also very weak on Iraq and national defense, which is scary because national defense is about the only thing our Government should do. Everything else should be private sector. Oh my GODS stop getting your information from fox news! Man! He's very strong on Iraq: He was agaisnts the invasion from the get go. He's very strong on national defense: Bring the troops home so they are available for national defense, rather than spreading them thinly over the globe to manage an empire. He's the "everything else should be private sector" man.
Fred Thompson was by far the best candidate in terms of his views on the issues. He still is the only candidate to share his opinions on everything, and he was the only candidate on either side that didn't switch his views just to win votes. He has believed the same things for years. You can check out Ron Paul interviews from the 80's where his position is exactly the same on every single issue except one (death penalty, he finally understood that the state shouldn't murder citizens). His consistency shows in his voting record.
Bottom line: I would rather have a president I disagree with on some issues but I know in my heart is strong and stubborn than someone who will change their views based on popular opinion. What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.
You seriously need to find out real information on Ron Paul, rather than relying on whatever the hell it was that lead you to believe utter nonsense about him. He's the man you want, from what you say you want.
I'm glad his supporters think a President can save the country, and I'll admit that he is the only man up there who truly supports small government and true U.S. Constitutional values, but though zeal is commendable, it is naive to believe he can do anything to fix the problems in Washington. The President is quite hamstrung in most matters without Congressional support, and if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done.
He has a compelling message, but no ability to affect many of the changes he discusses, much as the Democratic candidates cannot make good on their promises of universal health care without 60 votes in the Senate. It's all a bit daft for Presidential candidates to talk about anything other than executive policy and statesmanship. A Cult of Personality, without full political backing, cannot get things done in Washington.
He has a great message, but no sense of how those values apply practically to the Presidency. Indeed, sometimes it seems he has no common sense at all. That is to the truth as water is to dryness. He's been elected 10 times to the federal government, he knows how the system works better than you.
You have been misinformed and I hope you'll correct this by finding out what his actual ideas are, rather than relying on the mud you've seen thrown his way.
I can't help but feel he has some motive that he is hiding, something he is waiting to spring up on us. And they say his supporters are insane conspiracy theorists!
"Eat all of your meat or Ron Paul will come and get you! Booga booga!"
Am I the only one that finds it funny to find a blurb that mentions the Mediterranean Sea and lists countries like India and Pakistan? This is a site from the US of A, so, yeah, no one else noticed;-)
Here are two links which take different take on the issue but arrive at a similar conclusion. The first link says that Galileo was only condemnded after attacking philosophy.
The next link shows that it was professors at University that pushed for the Inquisition and that the Church initially supported him
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/08/16/galileo-redux/ "Tradition In Action is committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions. TIA also works for a restoration of Christian civilization, adapted to contemporary historical circumstances. "
Oh yeah, no agenda here, I'll just swallow what they have to say.
Those mean professors bullied the demure Inquisition into sentencing him to prison! Poor, powerless Inquisition, at the mercy of every university professor out there...
Lastly the Church didn't even want to condemn Galileo. That is a myth in an of itself. In fact they never stopped his research and even celebrated much of it. Galileo was ordered to Rome to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633, "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world", against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation [...] on 25 Feb 1616 that [...] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned"[12]. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:
* Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas, declaring the immobility of the sun to be "absurd in philosophy and formally heretical", and the mobility of the Earth "to be at least erroneous in faith";
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future[13]
There is a lot of effort in the religious circles to rewrite that part of their shameful history. I see you're a good sheep. You managed to take their order to shut up as a "celebration" of his theory. Takes a lot of effort to achieve that level of doublethink.
I was a Sophomore in High School when I was confirmed, and it was in line with my desire at that point. Yeah, no one's desperate to fit in in high school...
I wonder how did artificial insemination make its way to the hate list? The Church used to have a monopoly on procreation. Enforced with capital punishment. They want it back.
The fact that the Pope belives in God (obviously) does not imply that he thinks we should abandon Science and Technology. In fact he never attacked anything regarding science. He defended the condemnation of Galileo.
The Catholic Church has not hidden pedophiles. SOME PRIESTS AND BISHOPS have. The church didn't do it: The leaders of the church did it.
It's COMPLETELY different!
The fault was endemic to the system for decades, as priests and bishops came and went. It is not a fluke, it's an organization putting its own well being above that of the vulnerable children under its care. All large organization end up prioritizing their own survival over their stated goals, it's just a fact of life. The church should take the lumber out of its own eye before pointing out the specks in biotech.
we have individually chosen to believe (which ought to be in unison with every other Catholic). It is a large organization, but not one based on slavery (like the Borg) but one based on a personal choice. How old were you when you were baptized?
There was redundancy there. I was talking with a guy from Bahrain when it happened (already suspected a cable problem since I've experienced that with a cross-Atlantic cable already) and he said his ping just went up like mad, he was still able to connect obviously, just with a ping of two seconds. Two seconds? Sounds like satellite-pings...
a story about an asteroid hitting earth, or a new galaxy discovered. Which wouldn't be tagged with "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" "Nuclear bombs to be fired at incoming asteroid" "Giant laser to be fired at distant galaxy"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure that voting for someone who hasn't changed his mind on anything in 20-25 years is such a good idea. You don't care about the validity of the idea?
My, if he hasn't changed his mind recently, surely he's been wrong all along, an idea that was sound 25 years ago sure couldn't be right now! That's unpossible!
That leaves option C: You're an idiot: Dr. Paul knows the limitations of the office of president of the united states of America, that's a fact.
...
!
And their pie chart on TV during the elections has the name of all the other republicans hovering besides their red slice, but Ron only gets an anonymous black slice. Particularly annoying when the slice is the same size as Giulianis'.Hell, even the canadian broadcasting corporation doesn't mention him. They're having a big super tuesday news-o-rama, and they have 2 dems and 3 reps on display. Guess who doesn't exist according to Harper's CBC?
Paul rakes in more votes than Giuliani in every primary: Paul excluded from debate, not Giuliani.
Paul finishes second in Nevada, the big board has 3 other people (position one, three and four) on it.
CNN has pictures of every candidate smiling EXCEPT Ron Paul.
Etc.
With all this very obvious bias, you manage to think the bias isn't really there? You're special.
George Bush heard it straight from god himself, dontcha know.
Polls are a tool for manipulation, not a measure of reality.
I hate Hillary because when deregulation in Ohio caused the Great Blackout of 2003, she was really quick to blame Canada (blame Canada, with their beady little eyes and flapping heads so full of lies).
He's very strong on Iraq: He was agaisnts the invasion from the get go. He's very strong on national defense: Bring the troops home so they are available for national defense, rather than spreading them thinly over the globe to manage an empire.
He's the "everything else should be private sector" man. Fred Thompson was by far the best candidate in terms of his views on the issues. He still is the only candidate to share his opinions on everything, and he was the only candidate on either side that didn't switch his views just to win votes. He has believed the same things for years. You can check out Ron Paul interviews from the 80's where his position is exactly the same on every single issue except one (death penalty, he finally understood that the state shouldn't murder citizens). His consistency shows in his voting record. Bottom line: I would rather have a president I disagree with on some issues but I know in my heart is strong and stubborn than someone who will change their views based on popular opinion. What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.
You seriously need to find out real information on Ron Paul, rather than relying on whatever the hell it was that lead you to believe utter nonsense about him. He's the man you want, from what you say you want.
I'm glad his supporters think a President can save the country, and I'll admit that he is the only man up there who truly supports small government and true U.S. Constitutional values, but though zeal is commendable, it is naive to believe he can do anything to fix the problems in Washington. The President is quite hamstrung in most matters without Congressional support, and if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done.
He has a compelling message, but no ability to affect many of the changes he discusses, much as the Democratic candidates cannot make good on their promises of universal health care without 60 votes in the Senate. It's all a bit daft for Presidential candidates to talk about anything other than executive policy and statesmanship. A Cult of Personality, without full political backing, cannot get things done in Washington.
He has a great message, but no sense of how those values apply practically to the Presidency. Indeed, sometimes it seems he has no common sense at all. That is to the truth as water is to dryness.
He's been elected 10 times to the federal government, he knows how the system works better than you.
You have been misinformed and I hope you'll correct this by finding out what his actual ideas are, rather than relying on the mud you've seen thrown his way.
"Eat all of your meat or Ron Paul will come and get you! Booga booga!"
http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html
The next link shows that it was professors at University that pushed for the Inquisition and that the Church initially supported him
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2005/08/16/galileo-redux/ "Tradition In Action is committed to defend the perennial Magisterium of Holy Mother Church and Catholic traditions. TIA also works for a restoration of Christian civilization, adapted to contemporary historical circumstances. "
Oh yeah, no agenda here, I'll just swallow what they have to say.
Those mean professors bullied the demure Inquisition into sentencing him to prison! Poor, powerless Inquisition, at the mercy of every university professor out there...
* Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas, declaring the immobility of the sun to be "absurd in philosophy and formally heretical", and the mobility of the Earth "to be at least erroneous in faith";
* He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest for the rest of his life.
* His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future[13]
There is a lot of effort in the religious circles to rewrite that part of their shameful history. I see you're a good sheep. You managed to take their order to shut up as a "celebration" of his theory. Takes a lot of effort to achieve that level of doublethink.
They want it back.
Is it cannibalism?
It's COMPLETELY different!
The fault was endemic to the system for decades, as priests and bishops came and went. It is not a fluke, it's an organization putting its own well being above that of the vulnerable children under its care. All large organization end up prioritizing their own survival over their stated goals, it's just a fact of life.
The church should take the lumber out of its own eye before pointing out the specks in biotech.
"Giant laser to be fired at distant galaxy"