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 takes a lot to have to blast a ‘98er.
They simply cannot debate the issues. They will always start with the Alinsky type attacks which will try and rock you back on your heels and then try and make you explain.
These people have read Alinsky and use it exactly like the liberals do. Then, if you explain, instead of debate, they will attack the explanation.
If R Paul had nay sense of credibility, he would understand that one simply does not do such things and get far.
how long has he been around? Years I think. Good riddance. Were other comments of his missed or just never really crossed the line until now?
They weren’t trying to get us into a war for the sake of having a nice war. We needed a presence in the ME and Iraq was/is the ideal location vis a vis Iran. It started to go downhill when Bush & Co. decided to do the liberal thing and Win Hearts And Minds and do some Nation building.
Jim Rob warned him earlier on another thread to stop with the 9-11 nonsense.
Seems like Captain Kirk needed to get a "Buy a clue" button from the local pawn shop. He / she / it was one those "Nope, those planes never hit the Twin Towers", even though the horror was captured on file.
SO apropos...
“He’s dead, Jim”.
I guess tugging on Superman’s cape carries some risk?
BTW, Kirk and his college roommate Fist are nOObs as far as this old fart’s concerned.
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.
There are LIFO’s and MIFO’s, Let It Happen on Purpose and Make it Happen on Purpose.
Paul falls into the LIFO most of the time in that he makes statements that there were elements that allowed events to take place so they could have the wars and crack downs on freedom they want.
Sometimes he borders on the MIFO line of thought when he directly blames our actions for causing it, picking and choosing from Osama’s rants to make it our own fault.
Truther’s don’t just need to be of the, Bush Planted Thermite line of thinking.
Considering he reads from some hacked up version of the Constitution that often reads very differently than the ones signed by our founders, good idea.
His version of the Constitution is similar to Fred Phelp’s version of the Bible.
Easy fix, those Texans just need to vote Ron Paul out.....oh, looks like you're a Texan, get down on it big boy....
How does that make him a truther?
To qualify as a truther, one needs to assert that GWB was in on 9/11, not simply that 9/11 improved the political climate for war aims he might have had.
It's one thing to point out that FDR was having trouble getting support for making war on Germany before Pearl Harbor (and Germany's subsequent declaration of war against the US). It's quite another thing to assert FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and deliberately failed to prevent it in order to get the US into the war.
What has he hacked up? Please be specific.
I have been waiting, ever so patiently, for this one....
ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT! ZOT!
I think it was a butter knife. :-)
The author of this apparently has no idea what a truther is.
The truthers do not believe that the US used the WTC hit as an excuse to start a war; they believe that the whole event was fraudulently represented as having been done by Arab terrorists, when all the while it was staged by US operatives.
Truther is the wrong word here.
I’ve written books here on how Paul isn’t truly a Constitutionalist, but you want a sampling of just one example from each of the three legs of Conservatism:
1. Economic- Earmarks are the most unConstitutional form of spending, redistribution w/ out legislation. Paul is one of the leaders of pork barrel spending via earmarks in Congress.
2. Foreign policy- Paul ignores large sections of the US Constitution on his foreign policy stances, specifically in regards to honoring treaties (as to be considered ‘high law of the land per the US Constitution’), yet never offering a bill to defatify mutual defense treaties as the Constitution prescribes. At that, treaties are the only thing the only law outside itself the Constitution requires to be considered high law.
3. Social- I can go on and on this one, but let’s take Abortion. Paul ignores that the Constitution says no one can be deprived of life without due process of law- in other words, the individual right of existence trumps all, yet Paul treats this issue as a 10th Amendment issue as though States’ rights somehow trump individual rights.
....and so on....
Some more examples- Falsely claiming that the only way the Constitution allows the use of the military in our interest is through a formal declaration of war (specifically worded as he expects). This contradicts Article 1, Section 8 which gives three specific ways the military can be used for force (1. Punishing piracy and offenses against the laws of nations, 2. Formal war, & 3. Quelling insurrections). He has been screaming for a decade how the WOT is unConstitutional yet this falls under category 1 in how the military can be used.)
How about his claim that the Constitution says that only ‘gold and silver coin’ are legal tender. This is again false. (albeit a decent practice). The Constitution limits States to only issue gold or silver for payments of debts but Article 1 specifically gives Congress the power to both mint currency and set the value, something they couldn’t do if it were a commodity currency like gold where the value is set by the market.
How about his opposition to the Defense of Marriage act and saying the government has no role in recognizing any marriage? Again, this flies in the face of Article 1 that does give Congress the authority to set standards for ‘weights and measures’. How does that apply? Federalist 42 discusses how ‘measures’ include definitions that apply to contracts and laws (ie what defines the parties in a Marriage Contract).
..want me to keep going? I can do this all night. I’ve been dealing with Fraud Paul for decades.
I bet you didn’t know he was literally kicked out and locked out of the Libertarian Party after an embezzlement scandal in 1988, which is why he came back to the Republican party after denouncing them? Literally locked out. After the FBI raided their offices, the door locks were changed and they found themselves out on the political street. Mr. Constitutionalist(sic) is an old time career politician who has found himself a niche in how he plays the game.
I’ve been keeping my powder dry for a while, but as some here can attest, there is so much dirt on Paul, even from his own pen, if I had time I could fill this place up with articles that his followers try to suppress.
No prob, oLDTIMEr.....
I'm a n00b to both of you, but lurked here for a couple of years before signing up. I came close to calling a 2001 sign up date FReeper a n00b since I wasn't wearing my cheater glasses. Numbers seem to run together.
That is MIFO truthers. There are also LIFO truthers that this falls into (see note a few above yours).
>> “Pfffff. I’ve read a lot worse, I guess the purge is on” <<
No way.
Captain Kirk has been in attack mode for a long time, and has a blind spot for all the facts regarding Iraq’s involvement in all of the Muzzie terror, here, in Israel, Africa, and the Philippines.
I love the smell of burnt paleocon in the morning......
Great article, BTW!
...errr, I mean MIHO/LIHO...
I really shouldn’t do ten things at once, I screw up my acronyms.
No, you’re stretching the well established meaning of “truther.”
Think up another word so there won’t be any more of this kind of confusion. Look at all the argumentative posts your mistake has generated on this thread alone.
This one may go down in FR battle lore!
“Kirk was an interesting poster, he sometimes had posts that required thought to dispute”
lmao
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.