No, I never saw a single video clip that showed any plane flying into the twin towers says Captain Kirk, and the mod say ZOT.
Posted on 12/10/2011 3:53:36 PM PST by mnehring
I’ve been waiting for quite a while for Ron Paul to just come out and admit he’s a 9/11 truther. Frankly, I thought it would happen a long time before now. It has taken so long, in fact, that I had started to doubt whether he would ever do it. However, I guess his Iowa polling numbers must have him feeling his oats, because he finally let slip (apologies to those who cannot view the video in IE, we are working to fix the technical issue. Original video may be found here):
And it’s… just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately, before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq. So the war drums beat…
Perfect. Just great. Remember that the less crazy truthers out there don’t get bogged down in scientific nonsense like “fire can’t melt steel.” They don’t necessarily believe that the Bush administration actually put bombs in the WTC to help it come down (although they’re not precisely ruling it out). What they DO believe is that the U.S. government was warned by the Israelis/Saudis/French/whoever that the attacks were coming and deliberately ignored it because they wanted 9/11 to happen so they could go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Ron Paul has now moved from saying that 9/11 was our fault (which was despicable enough) to now saying that it’s something our government actually wanted to happen. Put this up there with Ron Paul’s belief that Southeast Asia got much better after we left Vietnam (a viewpoint doubtless shared by millions of massacred Southeast Asians – but hey, at least we trade with Vietnam now) on the all time list of Ron Paul’s contemptible and publicly-expressed beliefs. Add to this the fact that Ron Paul is a liar and a hypocrite on spending, who has built a career larding up appropriations bills with pork for his home district and then casting meaningless votes against their final passage, and I have to confess that I don’t really see the appeal of Ron Paul to Iowa voters. Well, the Republican ones, at least.
It started to go downhill when the Democrats decided they wanted the U.S. (and Bush) to lose. Thereby insuring that the Iraqi people couldn't trust us to finish the job.
If the 'Rats had kept their treasonous mouths shut, the fighting would've been over three years earlier. And thousands of lives -- both our troops' and Iraqis' -- would've been saved.
No, I never saw a single video clip that showed any plane flying into the twin towers says Captain Kirk, and the mod say ZOT.
Don’t like our anti-911 trutherism policy? Leave! And take your entire flock of flaming paultard spam monkeys with you.
Yea, yea. Real Cyber warriors address their insults to those they are commenting about.....putz like you aren't that savvy....
I got here late. What’s that smell?
Sorry, nOOb. Geesh, nobody laughs anymore...
Zotted Paultard.
For some reason it smells like a Grateful Dead concert.
No prob, oLDTIMEr.....
Yeah, that’s it. Patchouli with a hint of bad pot. It just goes to show that increasing the lithium dose doesn’t help anymore at some point. Peace, man.
Naaah. To me it just means that he’s getting ready to run as a third party candidate when he gets shellacked after super Tuesday. Get the name recognition by coming on strong in Iowa, take the beating on Super Tuesday, and leave Newt and mittens to fight for the gop nomination.
As a third party candidate he’ll pull about 15-20% in the general I reckon. Maybe more. People are ticked off enough at the dem-gop uniparty. Plenty of votes to throw the election one way or the other.
Interestingly, most candidates run for the center. Looks like RP is trying to run with a coalition that tries to unify the outliers. Who knows? It might even work. Strange times to be sure.
Thx. I tnd to be abrgd at tmes.
01001110 01101111 00100000 01010000 01110010 01101111 01100010 01101100 01100101 01101101 00101110 00100000 00100000 01000001 01110011 01110011 01101000 01101111 01101100 01100101
“Fair enough. Jim, why are your admins booting old timers? Kirk was goofy but harmless.”
It’s Jim’s website, and I think we all understand that he can boot whomever he wants. In truth I’m actually kind of surprised that he hasn’t booted me yet. The election year is young yet.
That said, political debate isn’t much fun unless there are passionate people to argue with and over time a lot of those folks have ridden the lightning. Agreed with a few, disgreed with most, but like hot peppers they add flavor to the mix. This poster was relatively harmless and there are plenty of neocons on the site to flame him when he steps out of line.
I hope you’ll reconsider, Jim.
“Ron Paul! Get LOST! We don’t need or want you; YOU JERK”
DAMN RIGHT! And he can take that friggin constitution with him. Right on SandRat
“Ron Paul! Get LOST! We don’t need or want you; YOU JERK”
DAMN RIGHT! And he can take that friggin constitution with him. Right on SandRat
“Ron Paul! Get LOST! We don’t need or want you; YOU JERK”
DAMN RIGHT! And he can take that friggin constitution with him. Right on SandRat
Put the bong down. In the real world, when the younger President Bush took office, the war we were fighting in Iraq was already the second-longest running shooting war the United States had ever been in. President Clinton bombed Iraq day-in, day-out, for his entire term in office. He was losing, but he did fire a lot of missiles, and drop a lot of bombs (and dropped a lot of concrete blocks).
President Clinton’s battles in Iraq were extensively reported in the press. Depending on what newspaper we’re talking about, you might have seen two or three articles a week, for eight years solid, about where we were bombing them, and where they had fired at our planes (they never hit one, but they kept trying). If you want to do a little memory salvage, I think that the missile salvo President Clinton fired when he was impeached got the most publicity, and would therefore be the easiest to look up.
The claims that the war in Iraq, which President Bush inherited from President Clinton, was President Bush’s “War of Choice”; that after ten years of solid combat, the ground invasion was “Premptive War”; and that the war in Iraq was a distraction from the later war in Afghanistan, are as obvious as lies ever get. If you fell for any of them, you should take it as a warning. You can be sure that the same liars have fooled you about other things too.
Someone who avidly keeps up with this please help me. My understanding is that a ‘truther’ maintains that elements within the US Gov. performed, assisted, or willingly allowed the 911 attacks.
While Paul’s statement that there was ‘glee’ within some US Gov circles over the attacks is odious, there is still a world of difference between asserting gleeful opportunism in the wake of such attacks, and asserting actual culpability in such attacks. Again, my understanding is that the ‘truthers’ assert US complicity or even execution of the attacks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.