Ron Paul is correct. Darwinism has too many problems. Homosexuals are dead enders under Darwinism. Darwinism, if it was the law of the land, would result in dire consequences for homosexuals.

Darwinism and evolution aren't the same thing, Doc. Darwinism is a theory about what drives evolution, specifically, that organisms evolve in order to better position them for survival.

Your comment about homosexuals reflects an inaccurate understanding of both biology and evolution.

If Ron Paul shares your view, he is hardly qualified to be the leader of the free world, IMHO. Denying established and accepted science in the name of a religious belief, well, that's what was happening during the Dark Ages a thousand years ago. Has YOUR perception (and Paul's understanding) of the world not evolved since then?

Really now, don't be a hater.

not to mention that homosexuals are capable of reproduction. many of them have children, "dr" watson, so it isn't quite the biological dead end you describe.

takes kkk money and rejects evolution. yea, great candidate.

Well, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY. A remarkably well functioning one, but still just a best guess so far. I wish you people were more informed about what science really is and what the scientific methods are.

["Ultimately, it makes little difference whether Paul is a Creationist. As a libertarian he's opposed to any government funding for scientific or religious endeavors."]

Exactly.

When you know the man opposes having government, or anyone IN government impose his own views on anyone else, what does it matter?

As one PaleoLibertarian said:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
--Thomas Jefferson-- 1787

There's a perfectly good reason for homosexuality in a Darwinian Universe: Our planet is becoming vastly overpopulated, its resources depleted at an alarming rate. We are using our intelligence to literally defy death, thus creating impossible-to-sustain numbers. I'm no biologist, or scientist of any kind, but it seems to me homosexuality could be Nature's way of putting the brakes on overwhelming the planet with too many people. If homosexuality seems like a biological "dead-end," then maybe Nature thinks there's a good reason for that.

Don
Oakland, CA

AIDS is very serious. It strikes at Africans and Homosexuals because the CFR through the CIA introduced it to take care of perceived problems.

I'm obviously going to vote for Dr. Ron Paul, but who really cares what Dr. Paul thinks about evolution? As long as I'm not taxed or told what to think by him or any one else. That's what my brain is for. It's disappointing that our Republican brethren are squabbling over who's religion makes them the better Christian. Or better yet, I believe Jesus Christ "The Prince of Peace" was sent here to help me kill others. We're Republicans. It's about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. For some that didn't get that, it's about taking care of yourself. If I don't have a "sound dollar", I may as well flush my savings, purchasing power, and investments down the toilet. Yes, I'm still going to teach my kids about the father son and holy spirit, but I would rather have them learn that through me not my Government. Read the Constitution.

The New York Times retracted there smear attempt about Paul's white supremist doner. He has the most solid political record that I've seen in thirty years in politics.

The New York Times retracted there smear attempt about Paul's white supremist doner. He has the most solid political record that I've seen in thirty years in politics.

And..., Surprise-Surprise~!
Faux Nooze, being who and what they are, are planning to exclude Dr. Paul from their 'Republican Candidates Forum' to be broadcast from New Hampshire, on Jan. 6.

However, they ARE including candidates who have consistently polled lower than Dr. Paul, and raising far less money from far fewer individuals.

Who still believes there's no media bias in favor of 'the annointed few' candidates from BOTH the big wings of our one ruling party?

Chant along with me:
Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Romney, Guiliani, McCain
Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Romney, Guiliani, McCain
Clinton, Obama, Edwards
Romney, Guiliani, McCain

"Who still believes there's no media bias in favor of 'the annointed few' candidates from BOTH the big wings of our one ruling party?"

Of course that is true, it is also not the reason Ron Paul cannot break double digits nationally.

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

~ Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900), The Gay Science, section 191

The bottom line for me is the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

He voted against them.

Clinton, Dodd, Edwards and Biden voted for them.

Bad behavior does not warrant support.

"He voted against them."

I know, Dennis Kucinich RULES!

Unfortunately, Capt, Kucinich lacks the grass roots organization which "built itself" behind Dr. Paul.
Also, the reason Dr. Paul isn't breaking double digits in the media polls is the same reason he's being excluded from the faux noise debates. The powers that be continue to exclude him. None the less, we will be in New Hampshire, and we will be making a great deal of noise. Watch and learn Capt.

"Watch and learn Capt."

Thanks, but what I am suppose to learn?

Kucinich is a kook, he will not win even if he had a huge grassroots org. even if he had mountains of money.

Do yourself a favor, never try to teach what you don't know and understand you can't "back-up" to a place you have never been.

All the money and organization can't make a viable candidate out of a kook.

That applies to all parties and all candidates.

Kucinich has been right on the two issues posted.

"The bottom line for me is the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.

He voted against them."

That was my point. Read and try to comprehend.

Kucinich is not a kook. Those who are against him are.

And your name calling does nothing to further whatever point you're trying to make. Instead, it gives your commentary a juvenile feel to it. Same goes for any supporter for any candidate. It cheapens the message.

The "watch and learn" had more to do with the New Hampshire debates and volume of the Ron Paul supporters at their own rally scheduled to take plpace simultaneously.

Watch and learn the power of a true grass roots movement, which has broad appeal to many who have grown sick and tired of the intellectual dishonesty of a media which is fully entrenched with the corporations that dominate our government.

That's a clearer picture of "watch and learn".

I am a Kucinich supporter, that doesn't mean I think he is not a kook, I actually like that about him.

If you don't like the term kook, substitute quirky - I think quirky is offensive but whatever floats your boat.

"watch and learn"?

So you really think Ron Paul will be president?

I think you need to learn that the only way to prove me wrong and yourself right is for Ron Paul to win, I am no soothsayer but I think it is more likely he will not win the GOP nomination nor a general election.

That means I need to learn something?

A lesson in humility is what you need to "watch and learn" just because we disagree doesn't make you any better than me so take your condescension and put it where it will teach you best.

Thanks

"The great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter a chance to do something stupid."
~ Art Spander

Capt admits that he himself is a kook. Don't feed the kook.

Ron Paul is losing me. I really like the guy as a person, but this kind of thing is just bonkers. Evolution is NOT a theory, it is a FACT. Precisely how it takes place involves many theories, however. It is not a threat to religion so stop taking it that way!

"The wit makes fun of other persons; the satirist makes fun of the world; the humorist makes fun of himself."

~ James Thurber (1894 - 1961), in Edward R. Murrow television interview

Roppson, you might want to look that one up, evolution is indeed a theory. I do agree that this is a non issue.

The Paul campaign and his grassroots support would be a lot more fun to watch if he weren't just another republican. As it stands, looks a lot like more of the same....the supporters have bought into this idea of libertarianism. As if, were he to make it all the way to the presidency, he could possibly wade through the entrenched system and get to the other side with those values still held in tact above the tidewaters. Besides, libertarianism is as flawed as capitalism, socialism, communism, et al. People seem real comfortable with the notion that there is one pure and perfect approach to governance. We need to stop polarizing and work on finding new government models that celebrate the best core principles of each [except communism; that's so distinctly it's own flavor, I think it rather drowns out the others].

Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality — for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice.

Someone had edited the video to censor Ron Paul's full statement and try to make him look like a Mike Huckabee. Here's the full, unedited clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zz94-OrnXzE

No... it's a theory. The word theory, as used in Science, is misunderstood. People hear the word theory and they think, "oh... so you just dreamed this up then? It doesn't really mean anything?" Ummm... no.

In science... a theory is much more powerful than a fact. A fact is just a tiny piece of information. A theory is something attempts to explain a complex phenomenon. The job of every Scientist is to test theories. Enormous amounts of effort goes into proving or disproving theories over years, decades, or even centuries! That's was science is. As far as theories go, evolution has withstood the test of time. There is a massive amount of peer-reviewed research and evidence supporting the theory over the past 100+ years. So no... it's not a "fact"... and it never, ever will be. We can never understand everything 100%. If we did... what would be the point of science?! But as theories go, it's been one of the most successful anyone has ever "dreamed up".