Jackie Mason attacks Ron Paul (the neocons are getting desperate)

Just watched, and what idiotic statements. His mother was an idiot that passed on the stupidity to her son. Nothing he says, other than that Ron Paul's an honest guy, makes any sense. Another person with an agenda other than what is good for America. I wonder how much he was paid to say ridiculous things about Ron. He was a good Ardvaark, but has the brain of one as well.

Didn't he die back in the 80s?

And why do I care?

This is a teenager borrowing the account to post their views on Jackie Mason's video, with a bit of input from me (they typed all this up beforehand):

The Iran topic. "We shouldn't interfere no matter what they do" - as in, they. What he means is that we shouldn't interfere with them in their own little bubble off in Iran. Sure, if they decide to just waltz in here and blow a couple heads off, then they have interfered with us. They interfered, not us. Our intervention could hardly be considered interfering - it'd more be a response. Dr. Paul voted no for Iraq, but yes to invade Afghanistan. What Paul meant when he said "We shouldn't interfere" is that we shouldn't get involved in business that isn't ours. When it becomes ours, well, that's quite another story. More George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible." As long as they don't interfere with us, we shouldn't interfere with them. Again, us responding to their interference isn't actually interfering.

The 9/11 topic. There are a lot of different ideas on this topic, and a lot of different, unrelated "facts". It's impossible to know who to believe. It makes it difficult to know what who says and what who else says is right.

The No Child Left Behind topic. I am involved in the school system. So bear in mind, this response to your views of the "No Child Left Behind" law is coming from someone who deals with students and learning and schools firsthand. No child left behind means that a student will pass no matter what. The school is obliged to do whatever it is that they can to make the student pass. And if all of this fails miserably, and the student still does not have what it takes to pass? Well, the school is obliged to pass that student anyway, no matter what grades the student is getting, or how intelligent they are. It's a free ride. The student just sits back and lets the school do all the work for them, and when graduation day comes, they're going to graduate no matter what intelligence they've got. Their GPA could be 0.0 - they're still going to graduate, according to this law. However, if this law were abolished, then the student would be forced to try to pass. They would have to work. If they don't work, they fail, they fall behind, and they're put on the same spot over and over again until they have definitely learned what it is the school is trying to teach them, and then they are permitted to pass on to the next level of learning until they have learned that. Instead of having their hand held by the government and the school and getting something of a "free ride", they have to try. No, you won't be getting a generation of morons. If I'm correct, the "No Child Left Behind" law was not instituted when you were in school. So what does that mean - you are of a generation of morons? I suppose everyone in school before this law were morons. That includes everyone. This law caters to the very dumbest and least intelligent students. This means that they are trying to bring the students up to the level of the schooling - or, when that fails to work, which it most definitely will, bring the schooling down to the intelligence level of the stupidest. This brings down the education level of the school, correct? And when the schooling level has been dumbed down - now you've got a stupid generation. Again, I have a feeling the "No child left behind" law isn't going to make children smarter, but rather make them dumber. Having this law suggests one last thing. The government is trying to make all of the students as equal in intelligence as humanly possible. Equality among the individuals? Similar thought processes? Identical learning? I'm sensing a bit of communism in the air... The idea of capitalism is survival of the fittest. The idea of communism is absolute equality among the people. Are we a capitalist or a communist society? Capitalist, the last time I checked. However, this attempt at ultimate equality - after all, where better to make us equal than in our heads, which are manipulated by schools - is exceedingly communist. So, in conclusion, the law is giving dumb students a free ride, is dumbing down the entire system for the ones who want to learn, and is a communist movement at complete equality.

The Civil Rights topic. I distinctly understand what you are saying, but read his writings about it. I understand both points of view, though of all the things he's mentioned, the Civil Rights Act isn't one I've looked deeply enough into to even argue about it. I won't argue about something I don't know about.

The Online Predator topic. Ron Paul is against all internet restrictions. The First Ammendment allows free speech. The internet isn't much more than that, is it? If the ten-year-old girl is silly enough to go meet this predator, and the parents are lax enough not to notice, then they are also at some fault. That's not to say the predator is right for doing that, but contemplating a school shooting is also wrong. Simply talking or thinking isn't a crime, though. The predator has the same right as any other to flat out lie - is lying against the law now? - about who he is. But it isn't this person's fault that the little girl is too irresponsible to not listen to all the internet safety precautions. I fully believe that these people are awful, and the world is better off without them, of course, and I highly doubt that Ron Paul thinks that people ought to be doing this. But they are allowed the right to speak whatever they want to. It's the act of molesting or murder that is the crime - not the speech leading up to it. All they're really saying is, "Hi, I'm fifteen. Wanna go meet up somewhere?"...That's illegal? Again, it'd probably be better for these people to be hit by a truck. But it's not the government's right to get involved in what a predator says over the internet.

You're entitled to your views, which I can give you the respect of since you gave that much to Dr. Paul. I just feel, as you do, that your views are imbecilic.

I wasted $2 on a DVD of Caddyshack 2.

What an awful movie, what an unfunny man...

...and why does the media waste time soliciting the political opinions of entertainers?

Sorry, but Jackie is way out in Hannity-land. Dr Paul never blamed the U.S., But if that's your stance, than answer this "has the U.S. done anything that should or could of angered others?"
A). no, we're great
B). no, we're rich
c). no, we're free
d). no, they deserved it
e). yes, when they have our oil

That is really sad. Garbage like this makes me wish the internet was regulated.

No wonder they keep attacking us.
What a moron, I thought he was dead.
Remember, that guy from Cheers was on tv telling people to support the war. Yeah, same story, these people have divided loyaties.

..or at least thats what he would be called if he lived in the middle ages. What a berk! He has on average 400-1000 people watching his vids. Most of them are neo-cons, all he is doing is inflating his ego.