| |
  
|
||||||||||
ANDREW SULLIVAN is on Colbert report
Submitted by davidg11 on Mon, 01/07/2008 - 23:54
I thought Andrew Sullivan was for Ron Paul. But all I hear is how much he loves Barack Obama. Did I miss something? » |
|
|||||||||
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul or his Presidential Committee. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original poster, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site may contain adult language and adult concepts. If you are offended by such content, or feel you may be offended by such content, point your browser to a different site IMMEDIATELY. For more, read the Full Disclaimer
© 2007 - 2011 by The Daily Paul. Not paid for by, nor officially affiliated in any way with Ron Paul. | General Site Disclaimer | DMCA Disclaimer | Advertise here
He supports Obama for the Dems and Ron for the GOP
He was clear on this in his endorsement of Ron for the GOP side...
Sullivan admits that he gets more dates when he roots for Dems
Sullivan, who is gay, was one of the major proponents of the Iraq War for the year leading up to it, and for 2 years thereafter. He admitted that the gay community was putting enormous pressure on him not to seem to support George Bush who was clearly a bigot about gays.
When Sullivan suddenly switched his opinion, he was not very logical about it and he admitted that it was because of social pressure.
This guy calls himself a conservative?
Why is he supporting someone (Obama) who doesn't believe in anything conservatives believe in, i.e. free markets, limited government. Listen up Andrew: you are promoting the wrong guy
Bile blowback
Sullivan has been reprehensible in attacking Ron Paul with his widely circulated blog. Or, have you all so soon forgotten?
I tired of the bile he writes months ago. He panders and slanders to the uninformed and perpetuates untruths about Ron Paul. Never correcting his blatant mistakes and misinformation, he is a reprehensible hack of the first order.
Regardless of the election outcome, the likes of Sullivan have clearly tainted the liberty message of Ron Paul.
Idiocy
Sullivan has endorsed Ron Paul in the GOP primaries. He's also endorsed Obama. I guess that's not good enough for you.
::rolls eyes::
It's folks like you who make it REALLY hard for the rest of us to gain new supporters.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995
I have removed Andrew Sullivan's link from my blog roll...
Andrew Sullivan is not a real supporter of Ron Paul.
He made an announcement to that effect several weeks ago but his blog posts speak otherwise. He posts more frequently about Obama, Hillary, Huckabee and Mitt. He posts no links to grassroots efforts for Ron Paul.
The same is true about Veracifier and Talking Points Memo.
They are all new media outlets trying to cash in on Dr. Paul's message and web traffic. They don't have good intentions and they should be ignored.
True supporters of Ron Paul
True supporters of Ron Paul won't change their minds. Be for one candidate for a week or two and then switch later. If they do they haven't researched what Ron Paul stands for on all the issues.
freedom or serfdom
i think we can look past that if we want to have any chance of continuing to have some freedoms in this country....
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies." - Ron Paul
He pulled support from Paul when Paul said...
He didnt believe in evolution
-----------------DO YOU REALLY WANT RON TO WIN------------------
Ron needs more than just money. Send this strategy to mail@ronpaul2008.com and also to press@ronpaul2008.com if these ideas make sense to you
www.dailypaul.com/node/14009
-----------------DO YOU REALLY WANT RON TO WIN------------------
Ron needs more than just money. Send this strategy to mail@ronpaul2008.com and also to press@ronpaul2008.com if these ideas make sense to you
www.dailypaul.com/node/14009
I could be wrong
but didn't Dr. Paul say it was something he really didn't think about much and didn't endorse one side or another.
Ron Paul "Sign Wave Across the USA" -- November 5th!
Official Email
——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Didn't see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron Shank
Ron,
Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.
http://www.shanktified.com/archives/ron-paul-campaign-on-evo...
also see:
http://www.shanktified.com/archives/answering-jp/
That's a very dumb reason to
That's a very dumb reason to pull support for someone
Remember though
what a politician's personal beliefs usually mean--that the politician will have some kind of hidden agenda to support themselves and those like them. My guess is that fear made Andrew Sullivan stop supporting Dr. Paul.
People just aren't used to having leaders like Ron Paul who can support the rights of everyone regardless of personal beliefs.
My two cents worth, anyway, for whatever its worth.
I don't know. I find it
I don't know. I find it scary, too. Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion, and I support him, but I find it hard to trust someone that is so blinded by faith that facts do not mean anything. Ron Paul is the first creationist that I will support, and that is only because I know that he won't do anything to push his views on the scientific community the way that his other coreligionists do.
Why can't you trust him?
Dr. Paul did NOT raise his hand when Chris Matthews posed that question about who didn't believe in evolution, and as Sullivan noted later, the YouTube that made him look silly on evolution was edited to do so, and doesn't sound nearly as bad when the unedited version is seen. It is not absurd to say that the theory of evolution remains a theory, and is still called a theory by scientists. If there were no question whatsoever of its correctness, it would be called the principle of evolution or the process of evolution rather than the theory of evolution. That doesn't mean that intelligent design is a reasonable alternative, since it is untestable and, therefore, doesn't qualify as a scientific theory at all.
That said, unless and until someone can show me one bill Paul has introduced or supported in 20 years in Congress in which a belief in evolution, intelligent design, or design by a schizophrenic cow named Gertrude would have changed his vote, I fail to see its importance. And whether Paul can be trusted depends entirely on whether his behavior over the past decades has been consistent, and the answer to that is obvious. Which I suspect is why you and I both DO trust Dr. Paul, even though we both think he has a few blind spots (unlike both of us, who have no blind spots whatsoever). ;)
Wired.com article theory to a law
Before the creationist idea took such a major hold the scientific community should have changed the name of it from the theory of evolution to the law of evolution. I agree with this guy. We wouldn't have such a huge issue with it now if it was called the law of evolution. It is crazy to think that this is all that is holding it back, but it is what it is.
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-11/st_thompson
Good article, but ...
What I find funny is that the author uses the example of one of Newton's "laws" and, as we know, quantum mechanics caused a rejection of these, at least at the sub-atomic level.
I'm not sure the word law will solve the problem. If we can repeal drug laws .... ;)
on that point....
I was so happy Dr. Paul brought up medical marijuana in one of his speeches. Mexico, especially northern, has become almost lawless and very dangerous due to nothing more than big profits from illegal drugs and another war (on drugs). Now, there's another forever war with no victory.
But I'll get off that soapbox now.
Ron Paul is NOT a
Ron Paul is NOT a creationist. He said he doesn't think either side is the absolute truth, and if you think he's an idiot for not "believing" in Evolution.. well, you're a bit strange because that's the area religion falls in, not actual science. Science is for proving and disproving, not beliefs.
scientists believe all sorts of things
Better tell these guys [random Googled example]...
"We believe that this experimental observation is due to a higher concentration of under-coordinated Fe in the outermost surface of FeS 2 (111), relative to FeS 2 (100)."
http://ammin.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/11-...
"Believe" can just be a synonym for "think"--as in have an opinion. Scientists, who are humans after all, believe all sorts of things about the natural world. They probably believe several things before lunch each day. Remember, scientists "do science" every day, but only rarely prove or disprove anything. Believing is not the same as taking a leap of faith. One studies, observes, thinks, etc. and believes this or that about a given experiment, hypothesis, fellow scientist ;), or the like.
Back on the topic of evolution--every biologist I ever studied under was pretty darn confident species evolved from other species. Probably on the order of how confident they are that molecules are made up of atoms. There are plenty of controversies about how evolution works, as would be expected in any relatively young and dynamic science.
Back to belief: I believe Ron Paul will do great in NH. I sure hope so!
< www.voxpolitico.com >
I agree.
This was a challenging issue in our household...we had to really think through what it means to be accepting of different viewpoints. I mean, it is easy to pay lipservice to embracing diverse thought, but it is much tougher to actually do.
Ultimately, we decided that if he could support our right to believe in science, we could support his right to believe in creationism.
yes, a bit surprising to me
Paul is so logical in his thinking, but oh well, he won't shove it down my throat. I'm a scientist and just don't know how people can ignore the facts on this, but I guess that's another debate.
At the same time, I do believe in freedom of choice, so if some people want to teach their kids that, it's okay by me. People are allowed to be wrong!!! Plus, with facts on our side, why be afraid of exposing minds to alternate theories?
It just makes our job more important.
What really is more important, from a biologist's point of view, is conservation of life and both creationists and evolutionists can embrace that.
I have a bit of trouble
I have a bit of trouble about this myself. From Paul's language, he never said anything close to being that evolution and creationism were mutually exclusive. Although he did mention those two while being asked probably because it was directed at the person asking him the question. However, I guess his argument is that evolution perhaps isn't a very robust theory where there are some things that it fails to explain for now, so why accept it as is now? I'm not a biologist however, and from my small understanding, Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest, while fairly robust explanation of evolution, does not always hold true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fittest does not always survive in real life, and I believe some biologists do talk about this.
"In a recent issue of Biology and Philosophy, Kenneth Waters argues that the principle of "survival of the fittest" should be eliminated from the theory of natural selection, because it is an untestable law of probability, and as such, has no place in evolutionary theory."
Kenneth Waters published that in 1988, and Ron Paul's education in regards to evolution is likely before that. Perhaps he hasn't been keeping up with any scientific readings since he's become a congressmen, I'm not sure. This might or might not be the reason why Ron Paul does not fully accept evolution. Although there are certainly still plenty more evidence to support evolution, it is just that Darwin's foundation of evolution is not exactly the best. For this reason, I would really like to listen to further elaboration by him on why he does or does not accept evolution. We all know he is a creationist, but that obviously does not rule out different interpretations of it. Again, I'm not a biologist, so I'm sorry if I've made a mistake here or there. I just like to leave a quote from one of the best biologist we have in the world today to show you why just because Ron Paul does not accept evolution now means he is not rational, at least not until we hear what he has to say:
"The evidence of evolution pours in, not only from geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwin's chief sources), but from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To put it bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant - inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write. Doubts about the power of Darwin's idea of natural selection to explain this evolutionary process are still intellectually respectable, however, although the burdern of proof for such skepticism has become immense..."
Daniel C. Dennett
good stuff in that post
But I gotta get some sleep here.
There are holes and unproven elements in Darwin's theory, so it can't be called a law as another poster suggested it should be. There is always missing data in trying to recreate the history of life. Lots of forms have gone extinct, so we cannot accurately trace how some jumps in forms occurred. Some have posited "quantum speciation", that rather than a steady flow of change, major earth events caused big jumps in biological evolution. Again, somewhat conjecture.
The last quote you cite would some up my view though. As we continue to assemble and compare the genomes (DNA) of the world's living organisms, their relationships make sense and are not a result of random mutation. If random, there's no reason why human dna should be almost identical to certain ape dna but completely different from cockroach DNA. It's all very patterned.
I guess for me, it doesn't rule out that a god or the God created existence in the first place and also created the force called evolution, LOL.
Lastly, survival of the fittest...there are not too many unfit life forms that make it. Mutations are usually for the worse. Males of species who fail to mate do not pass their genes into the future...if female animals choose colorful and strong mates, I view that as choosing the fittest. If the fastest rats can avoid the hawk, then they will be more successful producing offspring with those genes,etc.
The only species to avoid this mandate are human beings. We have overcome natural forces, sort of. Modern medicine permits how many of us to live far beyond what nature would have permitted? How many infections have you had that could have killed you without antibiotics? Blah, bhal..
In any event, I'm just not afraid of Dr. Paul's beliefs, whatever they may be on this issue. Now, as for Huckabee, man, that makes me nervous.
weird
ron paul believes in evolution as far as i know. interesting.
The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt
I'm lost now
Creationist, Evolutionist, Neither, Both...oh well, I can accept all.
As for one being religion and the other science, sorry doesn't work, at least to a point. If evolution is real, then the earth ain't 6000 years old and current life came from ancient simple forrms, including us. Creation doesn't allow for that.
Of course, evolution doesn't really explain why matter exists in the first place and therein is my faith.
I agree
That is close to nonsensical in terms of actually running a country in terms of understanding of government and whatnot.
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity