Ron Paul...

[Jefe]

[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]

They told this stat that this has been the first race since early 1920s that an incumbent or a vice pres has not been in the running.

[/quote]

What about 1968? Wasn't that Nixon vs Humphrey since Johnson wasn't running for re-election?

[plagiarism]

Nixon was formerly Eisenhauer's VP.

Ron Paul has no chance. The conservatives run the show, not the few moderate/liberal folks from the northeast or those with a libertarian bent. I read that Reagan wouldn't get his party's nomination in today's political climate, because he signed a bill as governor allowing abortion and raised taxes several times.

[ben_at_work]

[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>With regard to Romney and "cults" -- sure, LDS is a cult (and a bizarre one at that), but then all religions are cults. I have some friends who are Roman Catholics who disparage the foundation and history of LDS, but I find that laughable and richly ironic. [}:)]
[/quote]

Clearly you have no understanding of the definition of the word "cult". To say that all religions are cults is to say that everyone is in effect a member of a cult, because every single one of us believes in something. Even atheists are waging their entire existences on their belief that there is no God, which would mean that they too are in a "cult" as you apparently define it.
[/quote]

I don't understand why anyone needs to put down something that someone else believes in. Catholicism, Judaism, LDS, Atheism, whatever. It is our right as Americans to practice any religion we choose to and in my opinion pretty fucked up to put someone down for it or label them in a negative way as a Cult.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v359/ben_at_work/Benatworklogo.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

[Jefe]

[quote][i]Originally posted by plagiarism[/i]
<br>Nixon was formerly Eisenhauer's VP.
[/quote]

Sorry, I read that as "sitting" VP.

[phillyidol]

OH RON Paul! I thought you meant Sean Paul!




Worlds GREATEST Photographer!

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">I realise I'm not going to agree with every stance and personal beliefs of a candidate and/or established politician and that not taking the importance of evolution is a huge elephant in the room, but I still agree with Ron Paul on the issues he has spoken about at the debates and interviews. I'm also registering as a Republican so I can vote for him on the primary. Once McCain or Huckster get the nomination, I'll see if I can re-register as a Independent[}:)]

[SallyLightfoot]

[quote][i]Originally posted by deethelurker[/i]
Clearly you have no understanding of the definition of the word "cult". To say that all religions are cults is to say that everyone is in effect a member of a cult, because every single one of us believes in something. Even atheists are waging their entire existences on their belief that there is no God, which would mean that they too are in a "cult" as you apparently define it.
[/quote]Um, [i]No[/i]. I say that with adequate understanding of the definition. Air your complaint for what it is: You don't like me lumping-in your arbitrary belief-system or community-of-worship with others you consider to be apostasy or plain-old kookery. I didn't intend to offend you-- but then but I'm sure we've all been called worse than "cultists".

The point of my post was that no religion should throw stones at another, since they're all fantastically dubious (i.e., a matter of unprovable faith). If you would like to enlighten me on how your religion stands in shining contrast to a cult, I'd be grateful to hear in another thread. Or you could keep your faith (or advocacy) private, which is generally the best way to maintain congenialness.

Atheism is the absence of belief, not a "belief" against something. Atheists are people who just happen to not have faith in a supernatural god or deities. Non-theism might be a better label. And while atheists may be dogmatic in their [i]lack[/i] of belief, that doesn't unify them under the banner of a religion-against-religions.

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>[b]Atheism is the absence of belief, not a "belief" against something.[/b] Atheists are people who just happen to not have faith in a supernatural god or deities. Non-theism might be a better label. And while atheists may be dogmatic in their [i]lack[/i] of belief, that doesn't unify them under the banner of a religion-against-religions.
[/quote]

well-stated.

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">lol @ "belief that there is no god"[}:)]

[edisonoside]

I have switched to the Republican party from the Libertarian party so I can vote for RON PAUL... He is our only hope... There is NO WAY in hell that I will vote for any other Republican candidate.. To do so will be suicide for this nation and possibly the rest of the world. Huckabee scares me a bit. Romney, Rudy and the rest are just Bush lite and so are the Democrats with the exception of Kucinich.

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>Atheism is the absence of belief, not a "belief" against something. Atheists are people who just happen to not have faith in a supernatural god or deities. Non-theism might be a better label. And while atheists may be dogmatic in their [i]lack[/i] of belief, that doesn't unify them under the banner of a religion-against-religions.
[/quote]
It seems like a weak semantical argument that rather than being a belief in no god, it's a non-belief in god. The latter tidily excuses one from having to explain or justify an equally unprovable belief that somehow stands on a pedestal above other [i]fantastically dubious[/i] beliefs. Angie's "well-stated" seems to suggest she believes you have stated well what you believe this non-belief is. Perhaps theists should be called [i]a-atheists[/i] so they can correspondingly excuse themselves from any rigor and stand themselves on a pedestal too. Oh wait, of course they already do...just like atheists.

So I guess if we go by each groups' narrow and self-serving semantical constructs, it's true that theists can't really call atheists [i]cultists[/i] because they're not technically in a religion. But then, more mainstream theists would seem to be allowed to call some religious practices a [i]cult[/i] under more modern usages of the word that connote some sort of negative unorthodoxy. All religions can't then be called cults since this definition would seem to force the user to accept that there's some sort of orthodoxy to compare this unorthodoxy to.

Of course one could choose to refer to more neutral historical definitions where a cult just meant any membership in a set of religious beliefs. Then indeed, all religions are cults - a fairly neutral statement. Oh...but then atheists don't seem to use the term in this neutral context but rather to offer some sort of scorn for these fantastically dubious unorthodoxy's that are contrarian to their own, um, beliefs. Oops, then by that rationale, we're back to allowing one religion to scorn another religion as a cult too and both sides using their own artificial constructs to be able to label the other.

I'm not making a comment on the validity of atheism versus theism. I'm only saying that you seem to be using the term cultist with a justification that's as equally flawed as your criticism of others' usages of that word. Mixing in your non-belief rationale in this case doesn't match the logic and context of how you're using the word [i]cultist[/i]. It's a cop-out. Worse yet, it can obfuscate and ultimately neuter very real and important positions that atheists would be interested in, say like matters of separation of church and state.

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by SallyLightfoot[/i]
<br>Atheism is the absence of belief, not a "belief" against something. Atheists are people who just happen to not have faith in a supernatural god or deities. Non-theism might be a better label. And while atheists may be dogmatic in their [i]lack[/i] of belief, that doesn't unify them under the banner of a religion-against-religions.
[/quote]
It seems like a weak semantical argument that rather than being a belief in no god, it's a non-belief in god. The latter tidily excuses one from having to explain or justify an equally unprovable belief that somehow stands on a pedestal above other [i]fantastically dubious[/i] beliefs. Angie's "well-stated" seems to suggest she believes you have stated well what you believe this non-belief is. Perhaps theists should be called [i]a-atheists[/i] so they can correspondingly excuse themselves from any rigor and stand themselves on a pedestal too. Oh wait, of course they already do...just like atheists.
[/quote]
well yes, it IS semantics. You are correct there. And we could all go down the endless rabbit hole of refuting definitions or perspectives. But OTOH, I was originally only agreeing with the section of her statement that said [i]atheism is not a belief [b]against[/b] something[/i]. Atheism is just that. "[i]Without belief[/i]". That "a-" prefix and all that.
I agree generally with your explanation, too, Blir, in that we could all stand on pedestals within the construct of this argument.
I myself can't quite throw myself into the atheist camp. I'm pretty darn close. I just have no belief in that religious stuff. I can't truly say that I am [i]against[/i] god. I just don't feel it. I really can't defend my position, and don't have a solid argument why or why not. Maybe it all boils down to that "faith" stuff we all debated about a while back. How can one defend faith ? It's just something you feel. Just like, for me, it's something I don't feel. But does my [i]lack of faith[/i] in this system qualify as faith anyway ?
Again, not refuting what you said (and said very well, I may add.)[:)] Just the language geek in me getting into the etymology of that "a-" prefix.

[Bitter Almonds]

<p align="justify">"Equally unprovable"? How does one even begin to prove God (or anything in xtian mythology) doesn't exist? While we're at it, how does one prove unicorns, dragons, and faeries don't exist? To say "I believe God doesn't exist" is as simple as saying "Zeus doesn't exist." Actually, why would anyone need to "prove" anything on the side of theism? After all, they take it upon faith that God exists.

[Frau_Blucher]

[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>Atheism is just that. "[i]Without belief[/i]". That "a-" prefix and all that.
[/quote]
That the word is defined that way is plain to see. How the word is used in certain contexts subverts the contention that the user truly feels that that's all the word stands for.

[KYYX4ever]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Blir[/i]
<br>[quote][i]Originally posted by KYYX4ever[/i]
<br>Atheism is just that. "[i]Without belief[/i]". That "a-" prefix and all that.
[/quote]
That the word is defined that way is plain to see. How the word is used in certain contexts subverts the contention that the user truly feels that that's all the word stands for.
[/quote]

yes.

Now back to Ron Paul. Who caught the debates last night ? Damn, I watched the Repugs for 10 minutes before I [i]voluntarily[/i] switched back to the game. Trying to think like a Republican makes my head hurt ! Good heavens. However, I thought Paul was the clearest speaker of the bunch. He made (a little) sense. Unlike the other clowns that the GOP has running. I can at least respect that he's a Constitutionalist. The GOP is sooooooo gonna get wiped in Nov. ! Sorry. Some might CLaim the same for the Dems. I disagree. I'm not really behind one of them yet. I like them all. They have more spark and smarts than the other side.

I'm liking the idea of an Edwards/Obama or Obama/ Edwards ticket. Those two certainly looked like they were cozying up to each other last night.