What an interesting group of people, requiring Baldwin to have to watch every single syllable for fear of being pummeled to death. Since that’s the case, it seems counter-intuitive that these so-called liberty-minded voters aren’t pummeling Bob Barr to death for his past voting record, but are actually defending him.

I’ve heard every excuse for voting for a horrible example of a liberty-minded person like Barr, from “Well, we need to make sure we have enough votes so the party can get access next time” to “You don’t know what you’re talking about”. Interesting reasons, but in reality, he DID vote against freedom and liberty for years and years.

It must be very sad for truly liberty-minded Libertarians that a proven neo-con actually got on the ticket. For those defending him, it’s very odd and makes me wonder if they are actually neo-cons who have infiltrated the LP. The way they talk, the tone of voice, dripping with sarcasm and hate, sounds so neo-con-like, it’s weird and a really pretty frightening.

It’s all so exhausting.

I think I’ll forgive Baldwin for uttering the word “Christ” rather than Bob Barr who’s actually helped put Americans in the middle of a big, fat, freedom-sucking mess.

Thanks for helping me make up my mind.

At least he had more sense, and honesty, than his religious followers. If they would now only listen to their master instead of their Master.

Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

” Evolution does not claim that “the entire human body was constructed by total chance”. Evolution is accumulated change in a lineage of entities through inheritance of new variation. No individual or species is “constructed by total chance”;”

Response : How did ONE cell come into being? How did ONE cell become self-replicating? How did the nucleus develop inside the cell? How did DNA and chromosomes develop inside the nucleus? How did that ONE cell develop into the TRILLIONS of coordinated cells of the body? The religion of evolution states that it ALL happened by chance. Your line of ” evolution is accumulated change …” stands for development by CHANCE over time. That is the english translation ( truth ) of what you are trying to pawn off as ” science.” The religion of evolution claims that life started ALL ON ITS OWN by adding water to dirt ( or the reverse ) and then adding how ever many billion, trillion, or zillion years needed for the appropriate CHANCE to occur. So please don’t put out such B.S. as the above. The REAL TRUTH is that evolution bases its entire foundation on the roll of the dice – chance occurance. Instead you ( to use the now common phrase ) put lipstick on the pig of evolution by claiming it is ” scientific ” and that there are countless ” studies ” done. This is just B.S. to avoid the truth. As I wrote before – did the car you drive occur by ” chance?” Any sane person knows that it was designed and did not and could not occur by accident/chance/” evolution.” Then you claim that the human body which is zillions of times more complicated than any car occurred by accident/chance/evolution? Charitably put we could say that you are obviously smoking and inhaling something. But the truth is that you simply and outrightly refuse to see the foolishness of the evolution house of cards because it would destroy your personal house of cards. Lastly I notice that the evolution website, as you do, claims to follow ” sicence.” If that is the case they why not follow ( instead of totally ignore ) the science of mathematics which can easily show that the mathematic odds of producing the human body ( not mentioning anything else ) via evolution are 1 in 1,000000000with enough zeros to go off the right side of the computer and go the end of the universe. Instead the parrots all write ” studies ” wgich prove how ” scientific ” they are while they simply ignore the evidence, such as mathematics, which demonstrates their utter and complete foolishness.

Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

...lol!...apparently gruntman gets his information from fucking republican talk radio!...go ahead, gruntman, tell us all what you and stinking michael savage and ann coulter think

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

Adolf Hitler’s religious beliefs are often a matter of much dispute. Theists, primarily Christians such as Ann Coulter and Michael Savage[citation needed] (along with the general consensus on Conservapedia) have claimed that he was an atheist and have tried to use this as proof of how they (atheists) are completely devoid of morals. It is true that Hitler was not deeply Christian, but although he never attended church, he most definitely called himself a Christian – albeit a very bad Christian.

He was born a Catholic, and possessed a deep religious affiliation during his early years. For a while he was seriously considering becoming a monk. This was mainly a passing phase, though, and there is no evidence to suggest he considered this beyond high school.[3]

As an adult, Hitler often spoke positively about Christianity, and about how Jesus Christ was an Aryan (the race of humans Hitler believed to be superior). The following statements have been attributed to him:

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” – Adolf Hitler from Mein Kampf[4]

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.” – Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on 12 April 1922 [5]

“It matters not whether these weapons of ours are humane: if they gain us our freedom, they are justified before our conscience and before our God.” – Adolf Hitler, Munich 01 Aug. 1923 [6]

“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.” – Adolf Hitler, speech July 5, 1944 [7]

Thank you for also not daring to answer my point that humanists don’t say “because I said so”, but instead say that an argument for an ethical proposition should not be considered valid by you if you cannot see the force of the argument by the light of your own reason.

It’s laughable to claim that evolutionists never debate creationists. http://pandasthumb.org/links.html#kw-Answering-Creationists lists over 20 extensive sites devoted to debunking the claims of creationism. Since you’re Vice-Chair of the California AIP and I’m on the LPCA ExCom, I’ll gladly make an exception to my general rule and debate evolution with you, just for the fun of watching you flee from that debate too.

It’s ridiculous for you to claim you “can refute the entire site [TalkOrigins.org] quite easily”, when you can’t even correctly identify the thesis you’re supposed to be arguing against. Evolution does not claim that “the entire human body was constructed by total chance”. Evolution is accumulated change in a lineage of entities through inheritance of new variation. No individual or species is “constructed by total chance”; read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution to correct your ignorance on this topic.

Your quote about Hitler, Stalin, and Mao is a hilarious example of leading with your chin. If you hadn’t fled from my arguments against Christianity, you’d have seen this retort coming: “Your god Yahweh promotes or demands extravagant worship, dietary taboos, animal sacrifice, repressive sexual codes, human mutilation, monarchy, subjugation of women, slavery, human sacrifice [Lev 27:29, Jud 11:30-39, cf. Heb 11:17, Jam 2:21], and mass murder even of infants [Gen 6:7, 7:21, Ex 11:5, 12:29, 1 Sam 15:3, cf. Heb 11:7,28].” Unlike your god Yahweh, the theory of evolution has never commanded any person to commit mass murder.

Your suggestion that morality can only come from god(s) is philosophically illiterate. Please read http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/ to correct your ignorance.

Your claim that science involves religious belief is a common mistake among those untutored in philosophy. Science does indeed involve assumptions about metaphysics and epistemology, but it makes no assumptions about the the third branch of philosophy: axiology, the study of values i.e. normative propositions. Metaphysics and epistemology are entirely non-normative—they by definition make absolutely no assertions about what is right or wrong, good or bad, virtuous or vicious. Just because all of your ethics come from a bearded man in the sky, that doesn’t mean that such a person is the only possible source of ethics. Indeed, where do you think your sky-man got his ethics?

Imagine your god(s) “saw how great man’s wickedness on earth had become” [Gen 6:5] and decided to be rid of us. But instead of drowning us all in a Flood, imagine that your god(s) simply abandoned us to the uncaring universe. Imagine that your god(s) decided to leave us alone and unmolested, the way all the wicked atheists thought we were anyway. Imagine too that your god(s) had firmly decided and announced that the few not-quite-so-wicked people like you had zero hope of salvation, and that your souls would be painlessly uncreated upon your natural bodily death. What would you do? What would be your goals and values if you lost your bearded parent in the sky? Would you steal, rape, and murder? Why or why not?

I’ve got plenty more questions where these came from: http://humanknowledge.net/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/TheistQuestions.htm

Game on, Don.

ALL humans have a religious belief and a morality associated with that belief. Even ” science ” comes from and represents religious beliefs.

Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Independent Party of California

Kent Hovind’s Challenge to Evolutionists
John Stear’s No Answers in Genesis website has a variety of articles refuting Hovind’s challenge and his claimed credentials.
reationist Kent Hovind has widely publicized his “standing offer” to pay $250,000 for scientific evidence of evolution. He argues that the “failure” of anyone to claim the prize is evidence that the “hypothesis” of evolution is not scientific but religious in nature. What is the real meaning of Hovind’s challenge?

To be as clear as possible at the very outset: Kent Hovind’s “offer” has nothing to do with the validity of the vast body of evidence, from a breathtakingly broad range of disciplines, that establishes the Theory of Evolution as one of the bedrocks of modern science. His challenge, as will be seen, is a mere humbug without value in any rational appraisal of science. The terms of the offer are formulated to be unattainable and it would be nothing but a total waste of time and effort for any proponent of evolution to participate in his charade. The only intent of the offer is to gull the credulous and confuse the uninformed.”

English translation – We have so much evidence in favor of evolution that we will not even bother to debate any counter evidence or even the evidence we claim to have. We don’t need to answer the challenge because everybody knows that we are right.

And that ( curiously just like the argument in favor of man-made global warming ) is ALWAYS the story regarding evolution – we won’t debate, we won’t answer, everybody knows it’s true, we are SCIENTISTS!, blah, blah, blah, blah.

The perfect base for all arguments of The Matrix – tell the lie, repeat it a zillion times, never debate it, sneer at those who challenge it, claim your ” scientific ” superiority ( even when you refuse to debate ). It goes on and on and on. And so the people of the nation are trained not to think by those who claim to be ” educating ” them. Of course they are then just as suseptible to political lies as they are to ” scientific ” lies. And that is the whole purpose and point. I can refute the entire site quite easily but the believers in the religion of evolution have no desire for facts. Their only desire is partly for ego satisfaction and especially to avoid the truths which immediately present themselves upon recognition that we are indeed created/designed beings who never were, and could not possibly have been, created by the chance roll of the dice. The implication and reality that God not only exists but rules their life or ( their choice ) existence. The political implication ( one among many ) is that there is a very large part of the populace that has absolutely no desire for truth despite any and all claims and protests to the contrary. Truth would expose and destroy the myth that they exist under; such as the myth that they are independent agents/persons who can, WITH NO CONSEQUENCES, make up the rules of life as they go and ignore any that they choose to ignore. So refuting the site and the whole scam of evolution is easy. The bigger problem is that all of the ostriches have their head in the sand ( and other places ). They are afraid to come out because they know that the truth will shatter their carefully constructed house of cards. Truth is right out in the open but the fate of our nation will be decided by the undead army who, as in the movie ” I am Legend,” avoid truth like sunlight and exist only to use the rest of humanity as their next meal.

Don Grundmann Vice-Chairman American Indepedent Party of California

...maybe think of me like the trash-talking, absolute king of the hardwood…loudly calling out all comers..(and ALWAYS dunking on yo’ head when you challenge me!)..

...but thank you for the concern and readership!..

Ever get the sense that your language may not be lending a lot of dignity to the ideas you bring here, Clark? Ever get the sense that your choice of language doesn’t really have any dignity? I do, I get that sense, and I feel badly that you seem to care so little about yourself that way. You’re better than, “...ooga fucking booga…”, Clark, at least intrinsically you are. Why to be at such odds with yourself, is there some point other than something nihilistic in any of these ejaculations of yours? Any then there’s the annoyance, of course.

...ooga fucking booga…

...but do go on, i get an awful hoot!..

...and have a good day!...

The fact remains: humanists don’t claim that “X said so” ends a debate about morality, even if X is the humanist himself. Humanists instead explicitly say that an argument for an ethical proposition should not be considered valid by you if you cannot see the force of the argument by the light of your own reason.

Again, the available arguments for evolution and against creationism are too overwhelmingly powerful for me to bother trying to add to them. Come back when you’ve refuted http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html. Until then, keep heaping verbal abuse on people who disagree with you—it undermines your arguments (to the extent you’ve offered any) quite effectively.

Response : The ” unquestionable source of moral authority ” for humanists is themselves. They reason that they are so superior that they have figured out that God doesn’t exist. They then ignore any and all evidence to the contrary while patting themselves on the back in their mutual admiration society of how wondrously smart they are. Of course their ” ethics ” are supposed to be as superior as they are since they are not only superior to everything else but are constantly ” evolving ” to be even more superior with every passing day. And, being sooooooooo superior, they will never let any contrarian rain fall on their parade like the fact that their adherents ( Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and other similar religious believers ) have slaughtered a few hundred million along the way and continue to do so to this day. ” Don’t confuse me with facts ” is their ongoing motto coupled with using the word ” hilarious ” to avoid being confronted with the total meltdown of their religion and philosophy if cornered in a actual debate; a event to be avoided like Judgement Day.

Response : You believe in evolution – the scientific equivalent of the ” Great Pumpkin.” As I stated; the basis of evolution ( that everything happens by chance and particularly that the entire human body was constructed by total chance ) is not ( and cannot be ) defended except via flippant remarks about ” hilarious.” English translation – the yet again avoidance of the issue with the knowledge that evolution cannot be defended and will hence result in the annihilation of its attempted defender.

If that material is too difficult for you, you should at least see how the term ‘theism’ is used in introductory readings, like “The Justification of Theism” by one of the world’s leading academic Christian apologists, Richard Swinburne of Oxford: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09.html. He defines theism as the hypothesis “that the Universe exists because there is a God who keeps it in being and that laws of nature operate because there is a God who brings it about that they do.” Another non-technical introduction that uses the term ‘theism’ in the usual way is “Theism, Atheism, and Rationality” by the renowned Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth02.html. LeaderU.com does a great job of getting the best Christian philosophers to reprise their cutting-edge technical writings for a non-specialist audience.

You may be confusing the broad concept of theism with a very narrow conception of monotheism that denies the so-called “tritheism” of the Trinity. I trust that this audience sees straight through the confusion you’re trying to create here, but in case I’ve over-estimated their perceptiveness, feel free to continue trying to evade my point in this way. I don’t really have time right now to indulge my old hobby of religious polemics, so I’m hoping you’ll make good on your promise to retreat under a smokescreen of ironic charges about my “anger” and “tantrums”.