Yes, I was showing you what you did, the difference is my response was relevant to your response. While yours wasn’t.

You are still missing the point. Hillary is just as authoritarian as the Republicans both you and I despise so much.

“But violent video games would continue to be for sale in stores in the US, and not banned. Right?”

No. Their sale would be restricted based on her misunderstanding of technology.

“True or false: “Ron Paul supports Bush’s plans to invade and overthrow Muslim leaders”?”

Ron Paul specifically said: “Mr. Speaker, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future so-called proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially responsible for the attack on the United States, and it will be irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses.”

As you can see Ron Paul opposed this in 2001. If you are talking about his vote to approve a retaliation against our attackers in Afghanistan, you should first know that he introduced legislation calling for the Constitutional use of Letters of Marque (look it up in the Constitution), which would only approve force against our attackers, not specifically elected Muslim leaders, as you insidiously suggest.

LOL! More psychological projection from Sand!

I am not challenging the definition of “ban.” When it came to violent video games, Clinton tried to ban THE SALE TO CHILDREN.

She did NOT try to ban violent video games! Violent video games themselves would NOT be “prohibited especially by legal means ; also : prohibited in the use, performance, or distribution of!”

Violent video games would still be for sale to adults, and therefore NOT BANNED!

Sand gripes “The fact that I wasn’t specific doesn’t do anything for you.”

The fact that you were WRONG about the substance of the ban is just like the ways you were WRONG about Obama’s record, etc. It is not a matter of failing to be specific enough. You made accusations that are NOT TRUE.

Sand: ” I can say you “FAIL” because you weren’t specific enough to lay out the entire legislation, which does more than ban the sale of violent video games to minors.”

7) You could IF anywhere in the entire legislation, violent video games are BANNED! But violent video games would continue to be for sale in stores in the US, and not banned. Right?

True or false: “Ron Paul supports Bush’s plans to invade and overthrow Muslim leaders”?

2: to prohibit especially by legal means ; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of

The fact that I wasn’t specific doesn’t do anything for you. I can say you “FAIL” because you weren’t specific enough to lay out the entire legislation, which does more than ban the sale of violent video games to minors.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-2126

Of course instead of saying anything substantive, you want to argue syntax and semantics. How short-sighted.

So Sand is too “busy” to answer questions that PROVE HIM WRONG, but not too “busy” to get into new debates on other pages. LOL!

I have PROVEN that Giuliani’s political positions are MUCH CLOSER to Paul than to Clinton. And Sand has fled from any more defense of his old position.

6) Sand: “Hillary wants to ban violent video games.”

Did you actually read beyond the headline to read the actual article you linked?

The ban that Clinton supports is not “violent video games”, but rather their SALE TO CHILDREN.

The legislation “would ban the sale of violent video games to children.”

LOL! Sand fails again! Will he man up and admit it?

So much for being “open-minded and neutral.” Is your little website afraid of TRUTH?

Here’s a repost:

21. Comment by Freddy | December 11th, 2007

I like how Sand uses the word “actually” before Sand distorts, misleads and LIES!

Sand “Actually, Clinton keeps voting for the Iraq War, which Giuliani supports.”
1) Prove it.

Yes, Clinton voted for the original resolution on force and for funding. But you said she “keeps” voting for the Iraq war. So prove it. What votes are these?

2) Are you aware that since Bush’s Iraq war lies have been revealed, Clinton “keeps” voting AGAINST the Republicans and the Iraq war?

Clinton, Obama vote ‘no’ on Senate Iraq bill
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18862112/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/23/clinton.iraq/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said Sunday she won’t vote for any more money to support the four-year-old war in Iraq without a plan to start bringing U.S. troops home.
“I’ve reached the conclusion that the best way to support our troops is begin bringing them home,” the New York senator and former first lady told CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”

3) Sand, are you aware that right up to now, Clinton has been voting AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS to get Senate ratification on the Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act?
Sand “Clinton voted for the Patriot Act which Giuliani supports”

4) Sand: “Clinton voted for the Patriot Act which Giuliani supports” True but VERY MISLEADING. Clinton is on record that it needs amending and has been implemented improperly. Giuliani is NOT.
Read what Clinton has to say about the Patriot Act’s “tremendous potential for abuse.”
http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=249895

5) Sand “Hillary wants to ban violent video games.”
Here Sand tells an outright LIE. I challenge you to PROVE IT.

Clinton voted for the Patriot Act which Giuliani supports

Clinton and Giuliani actively talk about pursuing Iran, or in the least protecting Israel at any cost, and not allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons at any cost.

They both support the war on drugs.

They are both authoritarians. Giuliani banned ferrets and jay walking in NY. Hillary wants to ban violent video games.

On major issues Clinton and Giuliani are poles apart.

End the Republicans’ failed Iraq War:
Giuliani- No
Clinton- Yes
Paul- Yes

Federal Intrusions Into Personal Privacy with Big Government Restrictions on Abortion:
Clinton- No
Giuliani- Yes
Paul- Yes

Cut Corporate Tax Breaks:
Clinton- Yes
Giuliani- No
Paul- No

Reform health care and stop insurance companies from dropping citizen’s health coverage
Clinton- Yes
Giuliani- No
Paul- No

Fight Global Warming:
Clinton: Yes
Giuliani: No
Ron Paul: No

Looks like Republican Giuliani and Republican Paul HAVE MUCH MORE IN COMMON than Clinton.

Sand fails again. So your question rebounds on you.

“With the notable exception of Iraq, Giuliani is (mostly) like RON PAUL. So why would you want Paul for president?”

1) I notice that you FAIL to answer the question, BOris. I didn’t say I had proof they are lying. I asked if they are lying by claiming a FALSE military affiliation, will you CONDEMN THEM? Will you?

2) If Ron Paul’s campaign is fudging the numbers, will you reject the campaign?

BOris: “I don’t know many people who are politicaly active who actualy want guliani or romney as president.”

3) Of course not. Who could want them for president? They support Bush’s failures in Iraq and will throw more Americans into the meat grinder for Bush’s oil buddies. It is clear that the thinking Republicans have gone to Ron Paul. Too bad Ron Paul is a hypocrite who sells out his principles for power, as I have pointed out.

BOris: “If you want a socialistic country, go somewhere else.”

4) Have you failed to notice that we already ARE a socialist country? We have socialized education. We have socialized retirement. We have socialized military, etc. “Problem is people have this idea that the government is here to help you out all through your life” by protecting you from enemies. Why should the government hire an army for you?

All this “proves” is that Ron Paul supporters “loves them some publicity-seeking donation stunts.”

Prove there is validity in any of this. Prove that the Ron Paul donors claiming to be military actually ARE military. Prove that this is not just another coordinated stunt like the “most donations in a single day” stunt that got big headlines but amounted to very little.

Ron Paul’s percentage of alleged military donors sure appears to have taken off ever since Ron Paul supporters starting trying to spin these numbers as “no matter how you slice it or dice it, the military loves them some Ron.”

If it turns out that Ron Paul donors are LYING and claiming a FALSE military affiliation, will you CONDEMN THEM?

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.

It would probably take a lot of work, but it would be a body blow to show clear, indisputable numbers of how certain individuals gain a ton of money from certain interests.

Can anyone confirm/link with source?

That is just a guess. It is very likely I’m way off.