post here when someone decides to run for president in 2016

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.

That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?

Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.

Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.

I never even mentioned God. If you don't believe in evolution, despite all of the evidence supporting it, then yes, you are too stupid to be POTUS.

The role of God in evolution is not something that can be scientifically proven - and yet many believe that the theory of evolution necessarily precludes god. This is a nuanced theological discussion that politicians are best off leaving alone. A presidential candidate's opinion on the matter is neither necessary nor meaningful. But because Walker wisely avoids pissing off people on either side of a politically irrelevant issue, you assume he is a creationist who fails your litmus test. It's dumb.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.

That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?

Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.

Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.

I never even mentioned God. If you don't believe in evolution, despite all of the evidence supporting it, then yes, you are too stupid to be POTUS.

The role of God in evolution is not something that can be scientifically proven - and yet many believe that the theory of evolution necessarily precludes god. This is a nuanced theological discussion that politicians are best off leaving alone. A presidential candidate's opinion on the matter is neither necessary nor meaningful. But because Walker wisely avoids pissing off people on either side of a politically irrelevant issue, you assume he is a creationist who fails your litmus test. It's dumb.

Nobody's opinion on any fact is necessary or meaningful. If I say I believe in evolution, that's no more of an opinion than saying I believe in gravity.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.

That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?

Yeah, and nobody who has their head so far up their ass that they can't see that evolution is obviously real is going to solve any of those problems.

Wait - if you belive that God played a role in human intelligence, then you're not smart enough to balance the budget? That's not just a trivial litmus test - it's an ignorant and (some might say) bigoted-against-religion litmus test.

I never even mentioned God. If you don't believe in evolution, despite all of the evidence supporting it, then yes, you are too stupid to be POTUS.

The role of God in evolution is not something that can be scientifically proven - and yet many believe that the theory of evolution necessarily precludes god. This is a nuanced theological discussion that politicians are best off leaving alone. A presidential candidate's opinion on the matter is neither necessary nor meaningful. But because Walker wisely avoids pissing off people on either side of a politically irrelevant issue, you assume he is a creationist who fails your litmus test. It's dumb.

Nobody's opinion on any fact is necessary or meaningful. If I say I believe in evolution, that's no more of an opinion than saying I believe in gravity.

Now you're just reaching down to stupidity. First by equating the law of gravity in terms of certainty to the theory of evolution, but also claiming that a presidential candidate's opinion on things they can actually effect, like the budget, is no more relevant than personal beliefs on issues they won't affect.

[michigancat]

what's scott walker's plan for fixing a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray?

[Rage Against the McKee]

Now you're just reaching down to stupidity. First by equating the law of gravity in terms of certainty to the theory of evolution

Well, they are both 100% certain.

but also claiming that a presidential candidate's opinion on things they can actually effect, like the budget, is no more relevant than personal beliefs on issues they won't affect.

It's less relevant, if anything.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Hey, K-S-U, what's your opinion on what time the sun is going to rise tomorrow? Oh, 6:41? You must not believe in God or something.

[MakeItRain]

Walker either doesn't believe in evolution or is too cowardly to admit to believing in it, though. So no vote there.

That seems like a really trivial litmus test. We've got an $18trillion debt growing by about $1trillion per year, a horribly antiquated, overcomplicated, and burdensome tax code, uncontrolled illegal immigration, a middle east is in flames and American foreign policy in utter disarray - but WHAT'S YOUR POSITION ON EVOLUTION?

sounds made up

[MakeItRain]

I also love when people try to shove aside abhorrent social issues that presidential candidates have because they don't matter. In our current political climate social issues matter the most, presidents can have a higher impact on social policy than they can all that other stuff you mentioned.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Now you're just reaching down to stupidity. First by equating the law of gravity in terms of certainty to the theory of evolution

Well, they are both 100% certain.

Gravity is 100%, hence it being a "law." I'd say evolution is more 98 or 99% when it comes to the basic theory of all life evolving from single-cell organisms simply because we do not have a complete fossil record. But again, you are missing the point. Yes, there are creationists, but the real debate over evolution is whether God (or aliens, or whatever) intervened in the evolutionary process. It is an issue that has bitterly divided the atheists from religious people. And again, politicians should not weigh in on issues that are both irrelevant to the politician's duties and needlessly divisive.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Now you're just reaching down to stupidity. First by equating the law of gravity in terms of certainty to the theory of evolution

Well, they are both 100% certain.

Gravity is 100%, hence it being a "law." I'd say evolution is more 98 or 99% when it comes to the basic theory of all life evolving from single-cell organisms simply because we do not have a complete fossil record. But again, you are missing the point. Yes, there are creationists, but the real debate over evolution is whether God (or aliens, or whatever) intervened in the evolutionary process. It is an issue that has bitterly divided the atheists from religious people. And again, politicians should not weigh in on issues that are both irrelevant and needlessly divisive.

They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain, rounding down. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.

Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue, that's why it is divisive, and that is why Walker doesn't engage in it (because it is irrelevant and therefore needlessly divisive).

[Rage Against the McKee]

They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.

Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue.

Yeah, there is an infinitesimally small difference. For all intents and purposes, there is a 0% chance that somebody who doesn't believe in evolution is right. The only people who turn evolution into a theological issue are the young earth lunatics.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't even know why you guys ask.

MIR, like all ignorant, hypocritical, partisan hard-line democrats will go to extreme, irrational and pathetic lengths to convince themselves any and every pub is a bigot. It's their rhetoric, because they literally have nothing positive to sell, but must feed an insatiable desire for power.

Rand Paul says it's okay for gays to get married, but doesn't think it's an issue because ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage. Bigot!!!

Democrat civil rights hero B.O., circa 2008 elections, is opposed to gay marriage. Bigot? NO! Mindlessly cast ballot for the democrat.

Fast forward to 2015, democrat hero and purported feminist raises millions of dollars from foreign governments who have criminalized homosexuality and condone the stoning of women who "allow" themselves to be violently raped. Fire up the absentee ballot - Straight (D)! 

But wait, rand Paul was combative with a female interviewer. Bigot!!!! Sexist!!!


These people have the intellectual credibility of a used car salesman addicted to crack. They aren't worth paying any attention to. They live to lie to themselves.  It's sad.

You guys notice that FSD conveniently danced around the point, funny little thing you did there I'll address these things though.

1. Paul has said several different times in several different ways that he views gays getting married as different, non-traditional. I don't need to make the argument as to why he is a bigot, he did it for me. He has not made the argument that you tried to attribute to him "ideologically he doesn't think government should be licensing marriage," nice try. I posted a stand alone quote and all of his quotes from another interview and never did he mention that the government shouldn't license marriage, he hid behind religion.

2. What Obama did is even more abhorrent than what Paul is doing. I respect Paul for sticking to his convictions no matter how wrong they are. Obama absolutely did believe that gays should have the right to marry but he shoved that aside for political reasoning; it was disgusting and I'm glad he righted that wrong. What the hell does that have to do with Rand Paul though, is Obama his adviser?

3. I guess I missed my post advocating for Hilary Clinton. What the hell does she have to do with Rand Paul being inconsistent on states rights as they relate to civil rights?

4. I think he acted like that on that interview because he's an bad person. No one on this blog called Rand Paul a sexist, not sure why you brought it up. Deflect deflect deflect.

Ironic that you talked about intellectual credibility when you tried to smoke screen and deflect your way to a sorry ass counter argument instead of just addressing what Paul has said multiple times.

Your (and every democrat) hypocrisy undermines your credibility, you dolt, and nothing in that long winded retort refutes that. These threads and posts are not made in a vacuum like some Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) high school debate.  The "missing link" to the ideological POV is contained in your OP pasted above. If you think stating that gay marriage is different than straight marriage or not traditional is bigoted then you don't know the meaning of the words. None of those statements are even remotely controversial.

It's pathetic that you've taken such a shallow, unreasonable and partisan position. You should be embarrassed. But you aren't, so go fill out your hillary write in ballot and support your bigot president (who only supports gay marriage when he needs votes).

[Mr Bread]

They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.

Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue, that's why it is divisive, and that is why Walker doesn't engage in it (because it is irrelevant and therefore needlessly divisive).

If he answers in a way that doesn't piss off his lunatic base then he has to reject established, baby steps science.  Real catch 22.  Doesn't want to commit to going full dumbass himself, but doesn't want to alienate all of the raging shitbrains he needs to get elected.  #divisive #politics #bases

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.

Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue.

Yeah, there is an infinitesimally small difference. For all intents and purposes, there is a 0% chance that somebody who doesn't believe in evolution is right. The only people who turn evolution into a theological issue are the young earth lunatics.

You've just perfectly demonstrated the problem, comparing anyone who believes God had a hand in evolution to young earth lunatics. That is an absurd thing to say. And that is probably why Scott Walker wisely avoids this needlessly divisive issue that is irrelevant to his job function.

[Rage Against the McKee]

They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.

Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue.

Yeah, there is an infinitesimally small difference. For all intents and purposes, there is a 0% chance that somebody who doesn't believe in evolution is right. The only people who turn evolution into a theological issue are the young earth lunatics.

You've just perfectly demonstrated the problem, comparing anyone who believes God had a hand in evolution to young earth lunatics. That is an absurd thing to say. And that is probably why Scott Walker wisely avoids this needlessly divisive issue that is irrelevant to his job function.

I never made that comparison. You might have, but I didn't.

[Mr Bread]

They are both 99.999999999999999999% certain. Gravity would have more 9s. I must have missed where somebody mentioned God in the question posed to Walker.

Ok - so even you would admit there is a difference. And it doesn't matter whether the question was presented as a theological issue to Walker - that's what both sides attach to the issue.

Yeah, there is an infinitesimally small difference. For all intents and purposes, there is a 0% chance that somebody who doesn't believe in evolution is right. The only people who turn evolution into a theological issue are the young earth lunatics.

You've just perfectly demonstrated the problem, comparing anyone who believes God had a hand in evolution to young earth lunatics. That is an absurd thing to say. And that is probably why Scott Walker wisely avoids this needlessly divisive issue that is irrelevant to his job function.

He didn't do that and you know it, K-S-U_Strawman!  He specifically called out a particular group of crazies. 

[Mr Bread]

If you think stating that gay marriage is different than straight marriage or not traditional is bigoted then you don't know the meaning of the words. None of those statements are even remotely controversial.

They should be to people who aren't bigoted idiots.  At one point it wasn't remotely controversial to say that white men should own black men or that wives were chattel or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.  #tradition #statusquo #everythingisfine #iamastraightwhitemale

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

If you think stating that gay marriage is different than straight marriage or not traditional is bigoted then you don't know the meaning of the words. None of those statements are even remotely controversial.

They should be to people who aren't bigoted idiots.  At one point it wasn't remotely controversial to say that white men should own black men or that wives were chattel or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.  #tradition #statusquo #everythingisfine #iamastraightwhitemale

Get a dictionary, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Saying they are different or not traditional is to say nothing. Using those as reasons to prevent gay people from doing whatever the eff they want is a problem. Uncle Rand isn't in that camp sans wild conjecture from dishonest troglodytes like MIR

[Mr Bread]

If you think stating that gay marriage is different than straight marriage or not traditional is bigoted then you don't know the meaning of the words. None of those statements are even remotely controversial.

They should be to people who aren't bigoted idiots.  At one point it wasn't remotely controversial to say that white men should own black men or that wives were chattel or that women shouldn't be allowed to vote.  #tradition #statusquo #everythingisfine #iamastraightwhitemale

Get a dictionary, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Saying they are different or not traditional is to say nothing. Using those as reasons to prevent gay people from doing whatever the eff they want is a problem. Uncle Rand isn't in that camp sans wild conjecture from dishonest troglodytes like MIR

The former propagates the latter, shitbrain.  Rand can't fire up fearful, hateful mongoloids and not expect them to act on his bigot speech.  He knows better than anyone that's what they do best.  In fact, he and others counts on it.  Keeps them distracted and together.  What do they have if they don't have an enemy?  #others #getem #us #them #politics #america

[Mr Bread]

Get a thesaurus, fuckface.

[Mr Bread]

Get an almanac, dickskin.

[Mr Bread]

Get an atlas, cocksock.

[Mr Bread]

I do like that as a way to start off a pit response post.  Tell them to get some kind of book and call them a name. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Get an encyclopedia, shitbrannica.