monty16

American woman, up is down and left is right. the earth is 10,000 years old and it's billions of years old. Everybody is right and nobody is wrong while at the same moment in time everybody is wrong and nobody is right. May peace and ditzyness go with you for the rest of your life.

Steve, If you are so dishonest to suggest that charity could replace government social programs then we're not even on the same wavelength. I can't debate with dishonesty.

Stop telling lies to your friends. I know that you are a first nations aboriginal with a sister who is known as 'Two Dogs F...ing'. (that should get some moderators attention)

The attack wasn't ad hominem in that it didn't address you directly. It was an attack addressing tea baggers. I've already experienced direct attacks against me, some being profane attacks to boot and no moderator has indicated that he/she has even noticed. Join me in an honest effort to stop the abusive ad hominem attacks or just shut the hell up about it.

Ahh, that's good Steve, now I've got you hooked in to the debate. I've already posed that challenge to Ron Paul supporters. the challenge is to show how not following Ron Paul's agenda and proposed changes could be unfaithful to your constitution. But I suspect that I've already mentioned how going with Ron Paul's agenda would take away rights and freedoms granted by your constitution by letting the individual states make their own laws. Surely your constitution separates church and state and by allowing the states to dictate prayer in classrooms, that would be in violation of your constitution. Argue this if you like but don't forget to meet my challenge too. You being greedy is your idea, not mine. But in relation to others, yes, it allows them to shirk the responsibility of looking after others. However, if you advocate that nobody has a responsibility to look after others then use that argument. If you are maintaining that others 'do' have a responsibility then you are suposing that some generous people will shoulder the responsibility and there is no reason for concern. But wait, if you were one of those who would be shouldering the responsibility then why would you want to take that responsibility off cheap miserly people and put more on your own shoulders?? I know why Steve. It's because you would personally save money! You could try to rebut my explanation above on what's motivating of course, but I think you're going to have a hard time making it convincing considering that the result of taking away mandatory tax funded government assistance would only result in you paying less. That leaves you to depend of defending principles and that's not good enough when people's lives and wellbeing depend on government run social programs. In fact it sounds more like an ideaology that would be pushed in Mexico or Bangladesh. Congratulations america! A little minor economic hardship is bring out the worst in you all and the real you! And what's quite amazing is that to simply revert back to tax rates pre Bush2 would fix the problems overnight!

In other words Steve, you disagree with me but then turn around and say you don't disagree with what I say he is. That's fine, that's how Ron Paul apologists operate. None want to dirty themselves with supporting him totally but none want to say that they don't support him. Sartorum is covered in a smelly mess of excrement but Ron Paul is covered in something much worse. You're getting to it Steve!

This is a little different and appears to be out of character for Ron Paul, considering that he is so hung up in the sex department. But is it? Ron Paul needs to pretend he's consistent on government interference in the lives of the people so he has to pretend on this. But we know he isn't because the previous point shows clearly that Ron Paul supports draconian measures against people's rights and privacies at the state level. Taking away those rights and privacies that the federal government rightfully protects. It can't get any more transparently phony than this! This is one of the best examples of where the libertarian agenda can be shot full of holes. There is simply no defence for it.

Meshes nicely with his racist agenda. Takes common sense checks and balances away from the federal government and hands it to states that would endorse the death penalty for abortion, advocate capital punishment for gays, mandate Christian prayer in schools, consequently stomping on the rights of non-Christians, and more. And he mascerades under the name of freedom while doing all this. And the baggers just eat it up as they scream for rights under their constitution. Never once considering the downside of Ron Paul's agenda on minorities. Ron Paul can pretend he's protecting the constitution but a quick look at this item 3 shows that he's doing the opposite. And it's exactly what Ron Paul is all about, along with his racist son Rand. Even stupid tea baggers can't be fooled by this one but they sure want to pretend they are.

Yeah, Joseph Goebbels was my uncle too. Grow up!

You need some time to think now so I'll leave you alone for a while. You're obviously a Ron Paul supporter who's afraid to be honest and admit he is. I've got your number. If I didn't have your number you would be picking up on the challenge to tell us what you don't like about Ron Paul. And you would be doing it in a convincing way, not a halfhearted way to make it look real. You're typical of a lot of Ron Paul supporters who are always saying that they don't agree with Ron Paul totally. (snicker)

Remember what I said, Ron Paul's expressed agenda is not his true agenda. Leading the people toward being more exclusinist is. This is the initial goal in both cases.

I'm not trying to say he's Hitler but I'm getting the message across to you already that there are similarities. But you tell me that you are not a supporter of Ron Paul so why not take the leap and tell us why not? What's wrong with Ron Paul's agenda that you can't support. Not what you can support, that makes the copout easier. Too extremist for you? Too racist for you? Getting rid of all those gov agendas to much for you? Rather just fix gov up a little?

Comparing Bush2, Cheney, or Rumsfeld to Hitler would be wrongheaded. That would be nothing more than rhetoric against their political agendas. And besides, they have already been discredited in the minds of both the left and the right. Ron Paul is a different type of critter altogether. Remarkably similar in methods to those employed by Hitler. Also a remarkably similar situation in the countries in question as pertains to economic hardships. Differing only in degree at the moment. Ron Paul and David Duke are bound to excel.

I'm not trying to convince you shady but I'm getting the responses out of you that I'm trying to get. Nothing of substance but a mindless blanket defence of Ron Paul. If you can sell that to Americans then they are more prepared and indoctrinated than I could have imagined!

I've listened intently to Ron Paul for a long time now. I take part on an economics forum which is mostly libertarian and most are Ron Paul supporters. I probably know a lot more then you do about Ron Paul. I understand exactly where Ron Paul wants his followers to 'think' he is coming from. Unfortunately for Ron Paul, the cracks in his facade are starting to develop. Probably one of the most damaging cracks appeared when Gloria Borger interviewed him and he couldn't get away fast enough. He did himself tremendous damage when he started frantically trying to get his mic off. No politician is going to get away with that. And so now he has become smarter and is trying to stay away from the media in the same way Palin operates. Ron Paul is really no threat yet because things have not gotten bad enough for the people. It does however serve a very useful purpose to make people aware of what he is up to. Or at least get them wondering and doubting Ron Paul's real purposes. I have no difficulty saying that he's a filthy racist hater. He's been caught flatfooted practicing it. And it's also obvious where his son Rand got his racism from. So is that what Americans want? Yes, the dregs of American society in the south do want it. It's exactly what they want because they think that it's a recipe for more money in their pockets.

The lost will remain lost no matter what I say. But it does serve a purpose to make more people aware and then perhaps prevent more people from falling for the Ron Paul lies. For those who have the slightest clue of what made Hitler's job of indoctrination easy, they will find a remarkable similarity to what's happening now in the US political system.

You see folks, this is indicative of the kind of apologist rhetoric that Ron Paul is going to need to depend on. Just don't take Ron Paul seriously and nothing bad or extremist will happen. Here again is an accurate parallel to the way Hitler was able to lie to the people so effectively. Nobody took his extremist views seriously. Those good people thought that he would just put those Jews in their places. They saw the obvious answer to their economic woes and knew that the Nazi party would never follow through with it's promises. Just like Bonam says, don't worry because Ron Paul could never get away with any of it!

As I said, it works with about 20% - 25% of the people and it'll always work in times when economic hardship starts to touch people. It's the way Hitler worked it in pre-war Germany and it wouldn't have stood a chance of success in economic good times. This is a real parallel to draw which can be defended! So the question becomes, are times bad enough to give Ron Paul success? If times get worse then his success will rise because they are directly proportional. And vice versa of course. I really doubt that times are bad enough for Ron Paul and his ilk. But there's no doubt that the current situation is bringing the rats out of the sewers. David Duke is experiencing a surge in popularity too right now. When the political vermin such as those two come above ground there will usually be lots of people who are just itching for an excuse to voice their hatred for everyone and everything that differs from them in any way. When MJ brings it all together on Ron Paul then it concentrates the stench enough for even some of the lamest idiots to smell. Each point meshes perfectly with the previous and the next.

That's also about as far as the stupid baggers will take the debate too. Empty rhetoric coming from empty bottles that always make the loudest noise. I challenge you or any of them to stand their ground and argue their constitution as it pertains to Ron Paul's dishonesty. Any of Ron Paul's nonsense can be debated while remaining true to their constitution. It's all nothing but a smokescreen that appeals to haters with tea bags hanging off their hats.

Well DogonPorch and Boges, your 24 hours are up and you both fail to meet my challenge. But it's o.k. because what I was doing was bluffing you two clowns in order to find out if you had any balls. Both of you obviously don't and neither do you have the slightest idea of what you are trying to talk about. At best you've watched a hollywoood movie or two on the holocaust and that's what make you experts. Two totally worthless babblers purposely attempting to disrupt any discussion which would actually attempt to answer questions and come to logical conclusions.

If you aren't a Ron Paul supporter then you've been listening to his supporters too much. Cheap tactics such as saying the law must be followed are easy to dredge up. (apply the baloney detector here) They aren't specific about which law and they don't quote their constitution. Or if they quote their constitution they aren't the least bit interested in how they can remain faithful to their constitution and not follow Ron Paul's dogma. The purpose is very transparent, suggest that the law must be obeyed in order to further Ron Paul's extremist hate agenda. It doesn't wash with people over a grade 4 elemnentary school level. Or should I say, it 'shouldn't' wash!

Ron Paul can make the constitution mean whatever serves his purpose. Each of his hatefilled agenda items could be successfully argued against while maintaining faithfulness to the constitution. It's nothing more than a smokescreen to hide his dishonesty. Don't try to pass off your political dogma for honest debate.

Nobody wants that! But it appeals to shallow tea partiers because they are shallow people. Ron Paul takes hot button issues from the repub agenda and takes them to the extreme in order to appeal to the extremists. None of them are the least bit interested in the implications of abolishing all those necessary government departments. They just take suggestions of saving money and eliminating waste to the extreme and support abolishing the lot. Ron Paul knows that there are enough simpleminded people out there that he can get away with such total nonsense. He wouldn't have 10 years ago but he's seeing surprising success now as the bad economic times brings out the selfishness and greed in the dregs of society. Those are the sort of people that Ron Paul's ilk depend on. This one directly relates to his racist tendencies as it is obvious to him that to eliminate those branches of government will primarily affect the poorest in American society. And the poorest being blacks and Hispanics to a large degree. It's far right extremism on a par with Nazism.

Gost, I'll be taking each in it's order as presented by MJ. Racism will be addressed in turn. Each item taken together makes the case against Ron Paul.

And so to start at the beginning: Ron Paul very often depends on quoting the constitution in order to appeal to simple minded people. Americans have been well indoctrinated into believing the dogma that the constitution is sacred. And so they support Ron Paul on that basis rather than understanding that his real agenda is being camoflaged by his constitution arguments. The 'constitution' can be used for any number of dishonest purposes and only takes a dishonest politician like Ron Paul who will stoop to the lowest levels for political gain. As he offers the lowest of society financial security or financial gain. And the real agenda which appeals to the lowest is that they can see that to throw people to the wolves who benefit and depend on medicare or social security will mean more money in their pockets. Those supporters never for an instant consider the real disasterous impact of what Ron Paul proposes. Not for a minute, but instead will present weak arguments to say that charity or friends will make up the shortfall. Knowing in their hearts that it wouldn't and never has. Hence the reason for government run social programs that are absolutely necessary.