Well you know someone once said to me “People who constantly use profanity in their everyday conversations do this because because their vocabulary is limited.”

And it’s also true that when some folks become hostile and resort to name calling while debating, its only because their “knowledge” is limited.

Have a HAPPY NEW 2008!!! and GO RON GO!!!

Sand and mcsjr333. The one thing you have to grateful about regarding this dialogue with Freddy is that he keeps you on your toes and even more well informed than ever before. Thanks Freddy.

And see if you can sit through this entire documentary .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

_______

The ONLY Republican in the debate better than any other Republican and Democrat IS Dr. Ron Paul – he will not only end the war, but he will preserve freedom and he won’t bend the knee to BIG CORPORATES the way the other Republicans and Democrats do.

Sand: “You use overly negative words like “FAILS” to suggest mcsjr333 could not answer your loaded question.”

19) WRONG AGAIN! There you go again with your SPECULATION instead of sticking to facts. I did not “suggest mcsjr333 COULD not answer” the question. Rather he WOULD not answer the question. I have no idea if he is CAPABLE of answering. But it is clear that mcsjr333 CHOSE to not answer. Right?

20) Because mcsjr333 CHOSE not to answer, he won’t say that there is ANY LEVEL OF HYPOCRISY that can turn him away from Ron Paul.
For example, there are plenty of Second Amendment absolutists supporting pro-gun Ron Paul. Many of them would be disgusted with Ron Paul and would stop supporting him if he suddenly changed his solid record on opposing federal gun regulations and shocked them by voting for banning ownership of some kinds of guns.
Do you see that this would answer the question? Yet mcsjr333 failed to say even this much. Right? If mcsjr333 refuses to define any level of hypocrisy at which he would reject Ron Paul, it DIRECTLY FOLLOWS that won’t reject Ron Paul for any level of hypocrisy.

21) And if it DIRECTLY FOLLOWS, so it is NOT a non-sequitur, right?

22) Sand, what conclusions do YOU draw from mcsjr333 CHOOSING NOT TO ANSWER a direct question about whether or not he is even capable of withdrawing support from Ron Paul?

23) Sand: “You do this on nearly every post.”
Prove it. You have yet to prove it even once.

24) Sand: “ I suppose you are just being inflammatory so you can get responses to your loaded questions”
Loaded questions “make a false presupposition” or “assume facts not yet in evidence.” When have I done that? Where have you provided any evidence that I have “assumed facts not yet in evidence?”

25) By FAILING to provide any evidence of “loaded questions,” it is Sand who has “assumed facts not yet in evidence.” Nice. More psychological projection from Sand.

26) Sand: “are you interested in furthering debate or simply attacking other people?”

Now THAT’S a “loaded question.” since Sand has not shown an “attack” on a person. Pointing out FACTUALLY when people fail to answer is NOT the same as attacking people. In fact, it is Sand who attacks people. Notice the “stupidity” attack he hurls at me in post #55 above.

Sand, if pointing out a failure to answer is an “attack” how is “stupidity” not “attacking” another person?

27) If Sand was interested in “furthering debate” would he be HIDING FROM DOZENS of legitimate questions? Questions like:

Ron Paul says that Bush violated the Constitution and should be impeached, but then Ron Paul voted to protect Bush from impeachment. What a hypocrite! Why is Ron Paul protecting Bush from an impeachment which would investigate Bush’s manipulation of intelligence?

Lots of unanswered questions here:
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates

or here
http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/17/ron-paul-leads-all-08-candidates-with-one-third-of-military-contributions-for-q2/

_________
Any Democrat in the race is better than Ron Paul on ending the war AND protecting Constitutional reproductive freedoms. And they won’t bend the knee to the Religious Right.

Apparently mcsjr333 is fine with “inflammatory” rhetoric. And Sand does not complain about it when mcsjr333 uses “inflammatory” rhetoric.

Is Sand fine with “inflammatory” rhetoric as long as it helps Ron Paul?

Did mcsjr333 answer? NO!

1) So you have failed to provide any level of hypocrisy that would make you change your mind about supporting Paul. If that is the case, your support is FAITH-BASED and not fact-based, so what’s the point talking to someone who makes a religion out of politics?

mcsjr333: “I have provided useful info in the links”

Uh, no you have not. You have posted Swift-Boat style attacks that are largely substance free. For example:
http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO201

2) Your site contains ZERO CONTENT, just inflammatory accusations (“Barack Obama is not fit to be Senator”) to get people to give up their email address. What a joke. What actual content is on that web page?

3) mcsjr333, do you see that the rhetoric of the site you posted is “inflammatory”?

4) And yes, Barak Obama wants to fix what’s wrong with the Patriot Act rather than scrapping the useful portions. So all you have accused Obama of is having a different opinion from Ron Paul. Big deal. Since most Americans do not support scrapping the useful parts of the Patriot Act, how is this any kind of serious criticism of Obama?

5) So mcsjr333 accuses others of being “inflammatory” but provides ZERO evidence of that. mcsjr333’s posts contain fact-free “inflammatory” rhetoric. How is that not hypocritical? Either “inflammatory” rhetoric is fine with you, or its not and you would not post it. Right?

Then you make an irrelevant non-sequitur conclusion when you claim that mcsjr333 “is CONFESSING that NO AMOUNT OF HYPOCRISY will turn him away from Rn Paul.” When there is hardly any basis for it.

“Since mcsjr333’s support of Ron Paul is FAITH-BASED and not fact-based, mcsjr333 has just told us that his comments no longer contain any useful content.”

Then you use an irrelevant conclusion as a premise to support more irrelevant conclusions.

You do this on nearly every post. I suppose you are just being inflammatory so you can get responses to your loaded questions, but come on, are you interested in furthering debate, or simply attacking other people?

I have provided useful info in the links I’ve posted and readily await freddy’s info/sources. I’m sure once he cools off we’ll see something.

Based on mcsjr333’s pro-Paul spam and lack of any answer, it looks like mcsjr333 is CONFESSING that NO AMOUNT OF HYPOCRISY will turn him away from Rn Paul.

Since mcsjr333’s support of Ron Paul is FAITH-BASED and not fact-based, mcsjr333 has just told us that his comments no longer contain any useful content. He can tell all the untruths he wants. He will never have a shred of credibility.

mcsjr333 “No questions.”

It is not surprising that mcsjr333 would beg and plead for “No questions.”

After all, mcsjr333 has no answers.

http://www.humanevents.com/offers/offer.php?id=BHO201

No questions.

Obama wants to rewrite the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. A.C.T.
Ron Paul wants to remove it.

Ron Paul is less authoritarian than any other Republican or Democrat. This is a good thing. I recommend you look up libertarianism.

Don’t forget correlation does not equal causation. And last but not least, Ron Paul opposes everything the Bush administration did wrong, and did so from the beginning. So stating that Bush’s mess is 3/4ths Ron Paul’s mess is not only disingenuous, but contradictory.

In other words you are dead wrong. Sorry to embarrass you so thoroughly, but such stupidity should not go unnoticed.

Ha ha ha! Formal logic! OK, what about “formal logic” says it “does not follow?”

It follows PERFECTLY that Republican Ron Paul is ALSO responsible for the mess left by Bush and the Republicans, since Republican Ron Paul’s voting record shows that he voted with the Republicans a whopping 3/4ths of the time?

If Sand FAILS to say HOW it “does not follow,” the Sand LOSES. Again.

“Formal logic.” ROTFL.

————
Any Democrat in the debate is better than Ron Paul- they will not only end the war, but they will preserve reproductive freedom and they won’t bend the knee to the religious right the way Ron Paul does.

//
mcsjr333: “After this administration’s mess we need a good Ron Paul for a little while.”

Since Ron Paul voted WITH the Republican party line 3/4ths of the time, BUSH’S MESS is 3/4ths RON PAUL’S MESS!
//

Does not follow for many reasons, some involving formal logic.

9) mcsjr333, what points about Obama do you find convincing on the links to these various “dirt digging” Web sites?

mcsjr333 “What else does freddy offer besides more Ron Paul website hits.”

I offer FACTS that mcsjr333 FLEES from.

I offer questions that mcsjr333 FEARS to answer, like this:

10) Is there any level of Ron Paul hypocrisy that can turn you away from supporting him?

11) If yes, what would that hypocrisy look like? Give examples.

Sand: “Nice non-sequitur Freddy.”

Non sequitur is Latin for “it does not follow.” In formal logic, an argument is a non sequitur if its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

mcsjr333 said “After this administration’s mess we need a good Ron Paul for a little while.”

I pointed out that Republican Ron Paul voted WITH the Republican party line 3/4ths of the time. Therefore BUSH’S MESS is 3/4ths RON PAUL’S MESS!

That conclusion DIRECTLY FOLLOWS from mcsjr333’s premise. So how is that a non sequitur, Sand?

Or will this be another time Sand FLEES the debate because he is WRONG but lacks the courage to admit it?

————
Any Democrat in the debate is better than Ron Paul- they will not only end the war, but they will preserve reproductive freedom and they won’t bend the knee to the religious right the way Ron Paul does.

Since Ron Paul voted WITH the Republican party line 3/4ths of the time, BUSH’S MESS is 3/4ths RON PAUL’S MESS!

LOL!

————
Any Democrat in the debate is better than Ron Paul- they will not only end the war, but they will preserve reproductive freedom and they won’t bend the knee to the religious right the way Ron Paul does.

1) Why is Sand lying about lying? Is this more psychological projection, like when Sand made a big issue of misspellings and then proceeded to misspell?

Sand accused me of “loaded questions” My questions are loaded with ACTUAL FACTS! Here are just a few of the FACTS that Sand is currently FLEEING:

2) Sand: “Hillary and Obama routinely try to have it both ways. They vote for the war, they claim they want to leave,”

FACTS: Obama did NOT vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. So Obama did NOT vote for the war. Are you misinformed? Or are you playing semantics?

3) Sand “In the end, they have the same foreign policy as George Bush.”

FACTS: Unbelievably wrong. Bush’s policy is staying in Iraq with no end and staying in the middle of the Iraq civil war. Clinton and Obama and Edwards have all pledged to stop patrolling the civil war, bring the troops home, and end Bush’s failed war. How is that the “same”?

4) How does a NON-BINDING resolution give Bush “authorization to wage a war with Iran” as Sand claims?

5) Ron Paul says that Bush violated the Constitution and should be impeached, but then Ron Paul voted to protect Bush from impeachment. What a hypocrite! Why is Ron Paul protecting Bush from an impeachment which would investigate Bush’s manipulation of intelligence?

4) mcsjr333, perhaps I did not ask clearly enough for you to give an actual answer. I’ll try again. Is there any level of Ron Paul hypocrisy that can turn you away from supporting him?

5) If yes, what would that hypocrisy look like? Give examples.

6) Regardless of any lies on Fox News, the question here is whether your support for Ron Paul is FAITH-based or FACT-based. Do you agree that if your support for Ron Paul is faith-based, then there is no point in even discussing it with you?

7) If your support of Ron Paul comes form PROVABLE UNTRUTHS, and I can PROVE those untruths from the statements you posted, are you capable of turning against Ron Paul?

Or is it IMPOSSIBLE for you to turn against Ron Paul, regardless of ANY AMOUNT of Ron Paul hypocrisy?

Sand: “in my opinion, Freddy is either inconsistent or hypocritical.”

Yes, that is your OPINION Sand, because it certainly is not FACT. If if were factual, you would be able to back it up with facts on the other pages of this Website where I CAUGHT YOU LYING- about things like Obama’s record.

Man up and deal with those facts, or get used to everyone laughing behind your back when you try to sneak back after FLEEING.

Meanwhile, any Democrat in the debate is better than Ron Paul- they will not only end the war, but they will preserve reproductive freedom and they won’t bend the knee to the religious right the way Ron Paul does.

1) What amount of Ron Paul’s hypocrisy would turn you from your “crazy” support?

2) Is there any? Or is your Ron Paul support faith-based rather than fact-based?

3) What if your support of Ron Paul hinges on provable untruths in the statements you posted in support of Ron Paul’s “lesser” lies?

mcsjr333

mcsjr333 HAS NO FAITH IN RON PAUL. He is afraid to accept the challenge.

So, mcsjr333, you insist that Ron Paul’s VIOLATIONS OF HIS WORD AND PRINCIPLES could only come from liars like Fox News. But when challenged, you turn tail and run. I am NOT talking about digging up dirt. I am talking about Ron Paul breaking his own clearly spoken word by voting for federal restrictions where he said he would not.

Do you believe that is possible? Would it make you reconsider your support?

Or do you just want to go on with faith-based support for Ron Paul regardless of how much he breaks his word or panders to the religious right or violates his own principles?

I know it sounds impossible that Ron Paul could actually have violated libertarian principles and violated his word to vote for big government FEDERAL restrictions on abortion. Bit if I can prove it, will you reject Ron Paul?

Revolution!

It amazes me that people would be PRO-Paul when I hear, constantly, the same people always whining about big government that abuses our freedoms.

Ron Paul abuses our reproductive freedoms. Ron Paul SAYS he supports leaving abortion rights to the states, but he votes for big government FEDERAL restrictions on abortion. Ron Paul TRAMPLES our rights so he can do the bidding of the religious right.

Ron Paul is a typical flip-flopping politician. Says one thing and does another.

People with family and friends who are in dire need of their disability need to speak up LOUDLY and OFTEN on the Ron Paul websites! You should be very afraid, this old man hasn’t a clue about disabled people, despite being a doctor! There are only so many positions for wal-mart door greeter for disabled people, those genuinely in need of SS/disability can’t do much else. And it COULD be any of us, anytime. Please take a step back and think about this even if it doesn’t impact you immediately.

PEOPLE WHO ARE UNABLE TO WORK WILL NOT HAVE ANY MONEY. What then? He is opposed to state-assisted suicide… which would be the only way to avoid becoming homeless, for MANY of these people. No matter how young you are now, one day you, too WILL be elderly and in need of a social security program to take care of you. Pensions are weaker than ever before, and non-existant in many places today that they used to be commonplace. Please THINK.

THE MORE, THE BIGGER, THE MORE COLORFUL, EVERYWHERE!

RON PAUL
THE BEST OF ALL

FINALLY A REAL CONSTITUTIONAL STATESMAN!
Joe Spenner

RON PAUL

Sticking with the facts in regard to our country. We are broke , our children our killed everyday in the middle east for someone else’s greedy purpose and we teach , encourage and reward foreign vistitors to break our laws right here at home.

Please refer to a 1993 National Geographic water resources map. Our neighbors to the south our well endowed with resources. There is no reason for them to be here rather than at home helping their own families. Keeping them here is no more than a criminal conspiracy on the part of our corrupt government.

I’m a lifelong female Democrat. I am changing parties to vote for Ron Paul. I hope that’s okay with you ……………

Ron Paul on the issues. He was asked on TV ” Would you stop a woman from crossing a state line to have an abortion and he said no. Read between the lines.

Would he stop an illegimate business from opening a phony business with a fishy out of state post of box from sending money across statelines ? Probably so. Would Mitt Romney ? Likely not. As a matter of fact , you might ask him where the money went. Your state may want some of the proceeds.

That’s as much as I’ll trouble myself, you don’t have a clue as to what I mean.

This advertisment says ” Is Jon Stewart fair ?” I wouldn’t have a clue. DON”T KNOW.

Good luck and every legal voter is allowed to vote as they please. That’s fair.

Of course I’m speaking third party. He’s got no chance of winning the Republican party nomination.

But keep dreaming boys and girls.

What was the *intention* of her work? To help people help themselves…or to become an authority figure…to have followers…not just to have people agree with her. She, like L Ron (yes, I said L Ron), wrote for the *intention* of creating a cult following.

How do I know? ALL SELF-ABSORBED CULT-LEADER WANNABES HATE HOMOSEXUALS. THEY REJECT ANYTHING THEY AREN’T SURE THEY CAN CONTROL. The last thing an alpha dog wants is to feel or look weird due to some sexual advance. Rand sure could slam any man that went after her, but not women. In fact, when you see Rand interact with women, you can almost see her seething in hatred of them. Her life and writings both indicate she probaby had a penis-envy complex. Yeah, Rand shoved a couple gays in her pocket, but she kept them in the closet…under control.

I love her works and grew a lot because of them, but her life’s ambition was horrid.

Why would anyone want an endorsement from a traitor like Novak?

I think she would endorse him in this race for the same reasons – and with the same reservations – as she endorsed Goldwater. She had absolutely no use for libertarians (small or big ‘L’), but he’s running as a Republican this time. I think that is what would make him provisionally acceptable even if only as an expedient.

For all his sincerity he really is extremely weak on foreign policy. I doubt that would be the big issue for her, though. I think she’d be much more concerned over his position on abortion. Why? Because that’s the plank of his platform where what he says he believes personally contradicts what he says he would do as President. It’s a symptom of a more fundamental philosophical break, and the exact kind of thing Rand would home in on to get to the essence of where a person *really* stands, philosophically.

If she didn’t like Ron Paul, I’m confident she would abstain altogether.

Ron Paul is the classic Philosopher King as described in Plato’s Republic.

Ron Paul is the intelligent thoughtful Claudius after the insane evil Caligula and Tiberius.

Ron Paul is the principled Thomas Jefferson repealing and eliminating the abusive and unconstitutional Sedition Acts.

Ron Paul is the peaceful, patient, persistent Gandhi.

Ron Paul is the insightful Dwight D. Eisenhower who warned of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex.

Ron Paul is the man of integrity and courage that America needs at this time.

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.” – Gandhi.

Join the Revolution — Restore the Republic — Save the Constitution!

Ron Paul has never voted to raise taxes
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget
He never voted for the Iraq War
He voted against the Patriot Act
He voted against regulating the Internet

Ron Paul is the only candidate not owned by special interest, big business, banks, military-industrial-complex, etc. Fight the system and vote Ron Paul. And tell everyone you know. Time to set ourselves free.

Ron Paul is 1st on YouTube, Meetup, MySpace, Technorati, Alexa, Google, etc.

Ron Paul places 1st or 2nd in every straw poll, debate, and active participation survey.

Dr. Ron Paul has the most contributions from U.S. military personnel and veterans above all other candidates. So support the troops and vote Ron Paul!

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were doing about the same in the ‘Scientific Polls’ at this stage in their elections. ‘Scientific Polls’ at this stage only measure name recognition. Over the next six months Ron Paul will gain name recognition. Most people who learn about Ron Paul become major supporters.

70% of Americans want us out of Iraq and want change.

Ron Paul is only republican candidate against the war.

Ron Paul only needs about 30% vote from republicans sick of the war and abuse of powers to win in republican primaries.

Dr. Ron Paul is the man of integrity and courage that America needs at this time.

Smaller Government = More Freedom

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.” John Quincy Adams

We are making history — Vote Ron Paul!

Visit YouTube and search Ron Paul to learn more…