"Vote for Ron Paul for the Republican Nomination - Because Dennis Kucinich is a Democrat"
Posted on 05/26/2007 7:52:33 AM PDT by Moseley
[snip] If Mr. Paul intends to stay in the race or even maintain his credibility, he needs to dissociate himself quickly from irresponsible accusations that the government is guilty of 3,000 counts of mass murder. Not only are such ideas offensive, but they are being used around the world to bash America and organize terrorist cells against us. American lives are endangered by such irresponsible propaganda.
For those who have not gone slumming on the Internet, the September 11 conspiracy theorists say no airplanes hit the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, even though hundreds of thousands of eyes watched the planes hit live, in person. They refuse to accept Osama bin Laden's proud claims of responsibility for September 11, instead "outing" bin Laden as a paid CIA agent. They claim that 30 tons of burning jet fuel could not melt steel, even though steel's strength is reduced at 1,000 degrees Celsius and melting is irrelevant. More than a dozen steel buildings have failed from fire alone. Last month, a burning fuel truck caused the steel in a San Francisco highway overpass to melt and fail. These people are not interested in answers or truth, but only in bashing America with falsehoods.
It's the same old story. When liberals thought "maverick" John McCain was useful for undermining President Bush and Republicans, he was the darling of the news media and liberals pretending to be Republican voters. Now that Mr. McCain is supporting Mr. Bush's position on the dominant issue of the day, the mainstream news media has shunned Mr. McCain like an old mistress once the affair is over.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
A letter in the Washington Times missed the point on Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul revealed only a glimpse of his 9/11 problem at the Republican Presidential debates in South Carolina. Paul may not have explicitly accused the U.S. government or Mossad off the 9/11 terrorist attacks on conspiracy-oriented radio shows. But the 9/11 Kook Squad believes that Paul is their spokesman and has eagerly adopted him. As a result, liberal democrats, anti-war activists, and so-called "9/11 Truthers" are crossing Party lines to swamp call-in shows for Ron Paul.
If Congressman Paul intends to stay in the race or even maintain his credibility, he needs to quickly dissociate himself from irresposible accusations that the government is guilty of 3,000 counts of mass murder. Not only are such ideas offensive, but they are being used around the world to bash America and organize terrorist cells against us. American's lives are endangered by such irresponsible anti-American propaganda.
For those who have not gone slumming on the internet, the 9/11 Kook Squad says that no airplanes hit the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, even though hundreds of thousands of eyes watched the planes hit live, in person. They refuse to accept Osama Bin Laden's proud claims of responsibility for 9/11, instead "outing" Bin Laden as a paid CIA agent (?). (Where is Joe Wilson when you really need him?) They claim that 30 tons of burning jet fuel could not melt steel, even though steel loses 80% of its strength at 1000 degrees, and melting is totally irrelevant. A 110 foot steel girder expands by 15 inches at 1000 degrees, causing a structure to twist or shatter. More than a dozen steel buildingns have failed from fire alone. Last month, a burning fuel truck caused the steel in a San Francisco highway overpass to melt and fail. These people are not interested in "answers" or "truth" but only in bashing America with falsehoods.
It's the same old story. When liberals thought that 'Maverick' John McCain was useful for undermining George Bush and Republicans, McCain was the darling of the news media and liberals pretending to be Republican voters. Now that McCain is supporting Bush's position on the dominant issue of the day, the mainstream news media has shunned McCain like an old mistress once the affair is over.
Ron Paul needs to separate himself from the kooks -- and fast. He has a long, proud record of independent thinking, that could be dragged under fast.
Ping of interest.
Ron Paul + 9/11 Conspiracies
Does that include breaking the mirrors in his house?
I was wondering the other day how Paul’s statements were any different from Ward Churchill’s ‘chickens coming home to roost’ statements.
Yup, heard one on the Medved show the other day.
Ron Paul was his hero.
The guy calling in was a moonbat extraordinare
I haven't taken a look at Ron Paul that closely yet, but with the kooks using him as their spokesperson, he's dead in the water
Everytime I see the name, “Ron Paul” I see “Rue Paul”.
His running mate can be Rosie.
Ron Paul has jumped on the Irrelevancy Express and is throwing the Green, Yellow, and Red logs into the fire.
This ought to be interesting....
anyone have any quotes on what this guy actually said about 9-11??
No, but we got cornered by a neighbor who has been brainwashed by the Ron Paul nuts. He now believes every conspiracy theory known to modern man. Like a visit over the back fence with the Twilight Zone!
Ron Paul should be ignored. Let the kook mumble to himself and his mind-numbed followers in a corner, but we really cannot let them drain conservatives of energy, money and time. We have to stick together and keep our minds on the BIG picture - stopping election of Hillary.
“Ron Paul needs to separate himself from the kooks — and fast. He has a long, proud record of independent thinking, that could be dragged under fast.”
The “9/11 Truth” kooks are as careless in reading Paul’s statements and listening to his speeches as the “Paul = kook” kooks.
Alcibiades, a former participant in the group of young men of promise who followed Socrates, was a millstone around Socrates’ neck once he betrayed the Athenian cause to Sparta. Socrates could maintain his distance as much as he liked (e.g., the hilarious contribution of Alcibiades to the “Symposium” dialogue), and still be handed the hemlock for “corrupting the youth of Athens”.
As the US ship of state founders on the reefs of fiscal insolvency and foreign adventurism to which it has been brought by several generations of mediocre helmsmen, the latest ‘empty suits’ struggling for control of the helm and their avid supporters will behave much as described in REPUBLIC BOOK VI
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.7.vi.html
Here Adeimantus interposed and said: To these statements, Socrates, no one can offer a reply; but when you talk in this way, a strange feeling passes over the minds of your hearers: They fancy that they are led astray a little at each step in the argument, owing to their own want of skill in asking and answering questions; these littles accumulate, and at the end of the discussion they are found to have sustained a mighty overthrow and all their former notions appear to be turned upside down. And as unskilful players of draughts are at last shut up by their more skilful adversaries and have no piece to move, so they too find themselves shut up at last; for they have nothing to say in this new game of which words are the counters; and yet all the time they are in the right. The observation is suggested to me by what is now occurring. For any one of us might say, that although in words he is not able to meet you at each step of the argument, he sees as a fact that the votaries of philosophy, when they carry on the study, not only in youth as a part of education, but as the pursuit of their maturer years, most of them become strange monsters, not to say utter rogues, and that those who may be considered the best of them are made useless to the world by the very study which you extol.
S: Well, and do you think that those who say so are wrong?
A: I cannot tell, he replied; but I should like to know what is your opinion.
S: Hear my answer; I am of opinion that they are quite right.
A: Then how can you be justified in saying that cities will not cease from evil until philosophers rule in them, when philosophers are acknowledged by us to be of no use to them?
S: You ask a question, I said, to which a reply can only be given in a parable.
A: Yes, Socrates; and that is a way of speaking to which you are not at all accustomed, I suppose. /s
S: I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering —every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer, though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard, and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug, they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion, they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?
A: Of course, said Adeimantus.
S: Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State; for you understand already.
A: Certainly.
S: Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.
A: I will.
S: Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him —that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ —the ingenious author of this saying told a lie —but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
If generations of classical scholarship has generally misread REPUBLIC, an insightful critique of utopian thinking, and useful outline for creating a personal “just internal regime”, as a serious promotion of utopian thinking, why should we be surprised that modern fevered devotees of the political life systematically misread a clear-eyed and consistent observer of the political scene just as blindly?
For a long time I thought he WAS Ru Paul. For those not in the know, a transvestite performer.
I know that guy!
That is some interesting editing.
Separate? He's part and parcel of the kookdom.
“anyone have any quotes on what this guy actually said about 9-11??”
They are all over the internet. Here are a few decent links:
War and Foreign Policy
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/issue-War_fx.html
Security
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst051407.htm
Patriotism
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr0522107.htm
Fixing What’s Wrong With Iraq
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst052107.htm
more - use indices at: http://www.ronpaul.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEJJ1GHteLM
Some good links in this generally over-the-top assessment:
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10995
The Ron Paul Effect: Antiwar Republican makes waves – and the Establishment is in shock
An excerpt (go to the above link for the embedded links in this statement):
Back before the war started, Cliff Kincaid, a conservative activist and writer associated with Accuracy in Media (AIM), a longtime mainstay of “movement” conservatism, penned a piece entitled “Antiwar Conservatives?” that questioned the existence of such an exotic species. Like the unicorn and the sphinx, this creature, he averred, was only talked about yet never seen, and he specifically took me to task for allying with the “far Left” in a united front against the war. Right after the invasion was launched, I appeared with him on MSNBC to debate the war: the country, I said, was against the invasion, and an increasing number of fairly conservative Republicans – such as Ron Paul – were speaking out against it. For his part, Kincaid wondered aloud how in touch with the national zeitgeist it was possible to be out in San Francisco.
Now that most of the rest of the nation is aligned with my fellow San Franciscans, however, Kincaid has done a turnaround: he not only acknowledges the existence of antiwar conservatives, but has also become one of their most eloquent defenders against the know-nothings of the neoconized GOP. The neocons are in a tizzy about the heresy of Ron Paul at the South Carolina Republican presidential debates, when he dared state the obvious: that al-Qaeda is “over here” because we are “over there.” Rudy Giuliani’s Mussolini-esque eruption and Paul’s defiant-yet-reasonable refusal to recant has become the fulcrum of the right wing’s agony over an issue that could sink the GOP, marginalize conservatives, and give us President Hillary Clinton.
Kincaid wisely recognizes that the neocon response to Paul’s speaking truth to power is intellectually dishonest. What’s even more heartening, however, is Kincaid’s anger over the attempted smearing of Rep. Paul:
“In a desperate attempt to make Rudy Giuliani out to be the hero of Tuesday night’s debate, Fox News is continuing to attack Texas Congressman Ron Paul for something he did not say. In the latest installment of this campaign, John Gibson of Fox News says that Paul ‘suggested that the U.S. actually had a hand in the [9/11] terrorist attacks.’ No, what he said was that U.S. foreign policy was a reason why Osama bin Laden attacked America. This is a fact.
“Gibson’s comment shows how Fox News has been eager to slant the news in favor of Giuliani, who claimed in his famous response to Paul that the congressman had said that the U.S. ‘invited’ the 9/11 attacks. That was false, too.”
The outright lie that Paul is part of the “9/11 Truth” movement, which holds that the U.S. government itself pulled off the biggest terrorist attack in American history, is the latest edition of the smear-Ron-Paul campaign that has taken off since the showdown with America’s Mafioso Mayor. The canard that Paul justifies terrorism is eagerly spread by the smarmy Gibson and the ridiculous Michelle Malkin, a cocoa Coulterite who, like the original white-bread version, makes an art out of self-caricature. Even after the complete falsehood of her charge against Paul was pointed out, and acknowledged by her, Malkin still did her best to wriggle out of it by trying to weave a very tenuous connection between Paul and the Truthers. The woman has zero integrity and even less credibility, but the smear campaign rolls on. As Kincaid put it:
“Ron Paul is being viciously attacked over this issue because some people don’t want to consider the implications, which Paul is honest enough from his perspective to spell out. These implications are that the U.S. should withdraw from the region, supposedly to spare the U.S. from any further attacks. That is the Ron Paul approach, and he claims it is what President Reagan would do. It may be naïve to some, but he cites Reagan’s withdrawal of U.S. troops from Lebanon after 241 of them were murdered in a suicide bombing. He thinks no good can come from U.S. involvement in such an irrational part of the world.”
Kincaid probably doesn’t agree with Paul’s analysis in its entirety, but he is honest enough to call a foul when he sees it. Chances are he is fairly typical of conservative activists in the GOP, not the bought-and-sold “leadership” but the rank-and-file, and therein lies a golden opportunity for Paul – and the antiwar movement.
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.