Ron Paul is in the news, and he has a serious shot at winning Iowa, so I think it’s time I finally weigh in… though not on what I think of him (I don’t need a paragraph, let alone an essay, to say that I would never support him).
I also have no need in weighing on the question of whether Ron Paul will be the nomi… pffft HA HA HA, sorry, sorry… I couldn’t even finish that sentence. Paul will never be the nominee. Paul has a better shot at winning a Democratic Party nomination than a Republican Party nomination in his lifetime.
But his campaign isn’t empty or futile, and it may have far-reaching ramifications.
One thing to consider is how this will affect the Republican Party. I predict that Romney will be the nominee and will lose to Obama. If this happens, I really think the Republican Party will “soul search,” or whatever it is that evil, soulless trolls do when they reassess things (I guess pray?). If Democrats somehow manage to win 2016 on top of all of this (if I had to guess who could, I would bet it would be Hillary Clinton), I bet the odds of the Republican Party radically altering itself goes through the roof.
One direction the Republicans might take is towards courting Libertarianism. While not a popular ideology among traditional (i.e. old) Republicans, it is the most popular right-leaning, conservative stance among the young. Young people see through the Neo-Con bullshit. People under 35 have no interest in marginalizing gay people, racial minorities, women, immigrants, non-Christians… or really any of the groups that Republicans traditionally rally around hating. If the Republican Party has a future, it’s probably in Libertarianism.
Ron Paul isn’t many things: sane, relevant, informed, electable outside of Texas… but he is a libertarian, and those other four things have never been important for a Republican nominee. Ron Paul may be the model for future Republican presidential candidates, I just doubt he’ll live to see it happen (I’m thinking maybe by 2020, when Paul would be 91).
But Paul isn’t totally out quite yet, so it’s not just about his legacy. Paul won’t be running for re-election to his house seat, which he’s had for so long that he’s probably unsure of how he’ll pack up his office without the help of the slaves who helped him move in. This presidential run is potentially the last election for Paul, and while I am confident he won’t get the nomination, he just might pull a Nader.
If Paul runs as an Independent or Libertarian and draws votes away from Romney, you can ignore [more than you would otherwise] all of that stuff I said earlier. If people blame Paul and the Libertarians for Obama getting re-elected (and don’t kid yourselves, Obama will likely win either way), you can probably forget about Republicans and Libertarians ever getting along. In fact, it might spur the long-stalled rise of the Libertarian Party, which has tried in vain to be politically relevant since the 70s.
Libertarians have often just been people who vote Republican and don’t have the balls to admit so in public, but there are others who have merely identified with the Libertarian ideals while acknowledging the party not currently viable. Many libertarians are basically like me: they abstain from voting, especially for the office of president, not out of a lack of interest, but from frustration at the “choice” we have forced upon us by the lowest common denominators on both sides.
In many ways, I am rooting for Libertarians to come into their own, not just slowly infiltrate the Republican party. While I’m not Libertarian, I do favor Libertarianism over Republicanism, and more than that, I would love for a more diverse political landscape in America.
But it’s all up in the air. I’m merely speculating on what I think could happen. I am confident of one thing, however: Ron Paul will leave a mark on American politics that will far exceed his results in this, probably his final presidential bid or political race of any kind.
Egypt's military: On alert for New Year's attack on Christians msnbc.com Oddly enough, my Christian, Jewish, Islamic, atheist and Wiccan friends all strongly agree on this point. Happy New Year all, let's stop spreading hate! "Hate movement against Christians?" Christians control all three branches of the federal government ...
Penn Jillette: An Atheist's Guide to the 2012 Election Boing Boing By Mark Frauenfelder at 3:15 pm Friday, Dec 30 [Video Link] Here's a great video from Big Think by Penn Jillette called "An Atheist's Guide to the 2012 Election." I have tried with friends to say the most blasphemous sentence I can possibly say and it ...
Credo: Rick Wingrove Washington Examiner I'm a lifelong atheist, even though I spent some time in church as a kid. Why are you so vocal and active about your atheism? It may seem almost trite, but when I was growing up I was taught in school all about rights, the Constitution and the ...
Headine: Hitchens a model for atheists today Greensboro News & Record By Tom Arcaro The recent death of Christopher Hitchens was sad news for many in the general reading public, but it was an especially somber blow to those in the atheist community. Of the major public figures in the “New Atheism” movement — British ...
It is obvious that the most visible religious institutions-from the Vatican, to Mount Athos, to the Southern Baptist Convention-are enormous bureaucracies virtually swimming in cash. Their relative immunity from taxation and the normal rules of fiscal oversight are troubling. But this case is especially jarring for the contrast it draws out between the grinding poverty of the Greek people under their new program of enforced austerity and the immeasurable wealth of the Orthodox Church. The same contrast will be drawn out in coming months in Rome, and I dare say in the U.S. as well.
Song writer and singer George Melly was an atheist.http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-19211298.html A picture of an overweight George Melly smoking a cigarette can be found [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:George_Melly_1978.jpg HERE]. On April 17, 2007, the Daily Mail reported that George Melly was battling cancer and ... (more)
Sam Homola, a retired chiropractor who has written several books exposing his colleagues, has written an update on the Science-Based Medicine blog on the status of chiropractic in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is essentially pseudo-physical therapy. As a retired physical therapist who has fought chiropractic for several decades, this post is very satisfying.
Some key points:
Most chiropractors have not discarded subluxation theory, which has been thoroughly discredited.
Some chiropractors are moving into other forms of alternative medicine.
Spinal manipulation has a limited role in spinal pain and is legitimately performed by physical therapists and other science-based practitioners. Since chiropractic's unique treatment practice is manipulation for the bogus subluxation, chiropractic has no legitimate role in science-based healthcare.
John Loftus has posted on why atheism is not a religion. Hopefully, this will be the last time either one of us (or anyone else) will need to clarify this truth.
To paraphrase the money quote:
Religious faith is an irrational leap over the probabilities, it goes beyond what the probabilities lead us to think. Science by contrast is based on the probabilities. When there is sufficient evidence for a conclusion then it is emphatically not based on faith. *Atheists simply refuse to accept something unless there is sufficient evidence for it. Now it’s true that there are some great mysteries to be solved with regard to the origin of existence and of life. But *atheists are willing to wait on the advancement of science since it has solved so many mysteries in the past. That is not faith.
* Loftus uses the term "atheist" here, but this blogger would prefer "skeptic", as some atheists arrive at/have the view of the question of a god through less than skeptical methods. After all, we all are human and are very much susceptible to claims not supported by evidence. That is why we have science to keep humanity in reality.
Fox News correspondent Dick Morris appeared on The O'Reilly Factor and Fox And Friends yesterday and attempted perhaps the most ridiculous smear against Ron Paul to date -- suggesting that the Congressman is more of a left wing radical than Obama.
Describing Paul as "the most liberal, radical left-wing person to run for president in the United States in the last 50 years," Morris added, "This guy is no conservative. This guy is a ultra, ultra left-wing radical."
"I think it's horrible!" Morris exclaimed. "Nobody else wants to dismantle the military, including Obama, but he does. Even Obama doesn't want to repeal the Patriot Act but he does! Even Obama doesn't say that we caused 9/11 and brought it on ourselves. But Ron Paul does. Even Obama doesn't want to legalize heroin and cocaine, but Ron Paul does."
The assertion that Ron Paul is the not only the least conservative candidate in the 2012 GOP field, but also the most liberal is beyond ridiculous. In fact, Ron Paul is not only the most conservative candidate, he is officially the most conservative member of congress and more conservative than any senator or president, not only today but dating all the way back to 1937.
Out of 3,320 individuals, Ron Paul ranks number 3,320 (number 1 being the most liberal) in a Common Space Scores tabulation by distinguished political scientist Dr Keith T. Poole. The scores are computed from all the roll calls cast in the House and Senate for the 1937 -- 2002 period.
To suggest that the other GOP contenders are more conservative than Ron Paul is truly laughable. Both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney supported the banker bailout and Romney was the author of an almost identical proposal to Obamacare, while Michelle Bachmann, the so-called Tea Party (Taxed Enough Already) candidate, is a former tax collector... -http://youtu.be/T57yvB4RDHs
Dick Morris: Ron Paul is a dangerous left wing radical
Morris says if Federal drug laws were abolished, everyone would be high all the time...I guess including Morris himself. He also shows incredible ignorance on his comments on the gold standard (maybe he's already on drugs).
With Christmas over (though I still hear the music at the malls; "Santa Baby" was recently blaring from the speakers - I guess the singer didn't know that Santa has come and gone for this year) the next major retailer event (aren't the "holidays" all about making money?) is Valentine's Day (they've already removed most of the Christmas displays from stores and I've seen a few putting the love stuff in its place), so this post should fit right in.
The Pope asks Catholics to be stupid This link could be the whole FLD. This may not be the worst aspect of religion but it is probably the part most responsible for turning an apathetic nonbeliever into an angry atheist.
Lies we Tell our Children
THE GREASED LIGHTNING SAVIOR This post had us cracking up. Great writing on this blog.
Responding to the Most Common Arguments for God’s Existence
Why read a ton of atheist blogs when you can read them all in one place?
Add your blog.
Want to share your atheist blog with the world? Please email your site to thedamned@iansbrain.com and if it's good enough we'll add it. All posts link back directly to your post. Help drive traffic to your site. Apply now.
