So you’re not only an ignorant coward, AK_47_7.62x39, but a fool as well. At least Ron Paul admitted that he “abandoned” his trutherism.
That is all you have? You post some stupid set of videos that are only semi-relevant to the issues surrounding your claim and think you stand triumphant with someone's scalp in your hand ululating over your... what, your "victory?"
Let me type real slow for you so you can follow it Homer. I-T D-O-E-S-N'T S-A-Y W-H-A-T Y-O-U C-L-A-I-M I-T D-O-E-S.
He clearly stated that the REASON the truthers responded to his campaign was 1) unknown to him for sure 2) although HE DOES NOT ENDORSE THOSE CONCERNS he was also skeptical of the government reports because they tried to cover up our own ineptness, and that might be why they latch on to him. You take that and go waving it around shrieking "OH GLORY OH GLORY. HERE IS PROOF" when a one eyed idiot could look at it and know that is not "trutherism" at all. Yet you trotted it out as "proof." I am torn between whether you are mentally incapable of walking to the sink to get a drink of water (which you would have to be to posit such tomfoolery in seriousness) or just so preoccupied with an irrational hatred here that you just don't give a damn about the truth.
The second video, which you are clinging to like a drowning man clutches a rope, doesn't do you any better.
The moderator, in a debate, asks Ron Paul
Q. Many of your supporters call themselves ‘9/11 Truthers’. They believe that the U.S. government was in some way complicit with the 9/11 attacks or covered it up. Are you tonight prepared to either embrace that rhetoric or ask those supporters to abandon it(emphasis mine) , or divorce themselves from your candidacy?
Paul: Well, I can’t tell people what to do, but I’ve abandoned those viewpoints, I don’t believe that, and that’s all.. that’s the only thing that is important, and so I don’t endorse anything they say, but I would like to take an opportunity to talk about the issue that we’ve been debating here for the last 20 minutes........
You latch onto the word "abandon" which the moderator used and Paul responded to, with a mindless yodel of joy as if THAT proved something, as well. It proves nothing. NOTE CARELFULLY that he followed that sentence immediately by the following (I AM GOING TO TYPE SLOWLY FOR YOU AGAIN SO YOU WON'T GET LOST)
"I d-o-n’t b-e-l-i-e-v-e t-h-a-t, a-n-d t-h-a-t’s a-l-l.. t-h-a-t’s t-h-e o-n-l-y t-h-i-n-g t-h-a-t i-s i-m-p-o-r-t-a-n-t.
Could you process all that at one go? Don't want to overload those circuits. OK, time for one last herculean effort at coherency on your part. Spin up those gyros, plug in those extra data banks and CONCENTRATE and this point might get to you, although I am a little fearful on this one for ya. Anyway, note that he never said "I don't believe that ANYMORE" NO, he simply said "I don't believe that." I know you are just fixated on the word "abandoned" as though it is just a dead ringer for "proving" he once held those views...... and you dance your jig of victory like Adolf learning Paris has surrendered.
HOWEVER, the fact that he had stated the PREVIOUS YEAR that he found such views "bizarre" and repudiated them, rejected them and denied that he held or ever held them. In a Glen Beck interview, Beck states "I have watched the interviews with you" (AMAZING strategy there. You should try it!)
"You don't leave any room for any doubt on a 9/11 conspiracy....." (but poor Glen Beck had never meet the intrepid sleuthertruthertracker chi-townChief... HE is not fooled. nosireeeee) " but I just want to make it clear and ask you, and I don't think these need explanantion, unless I have read your answers wrong elsewhere, but maybe you could just respond to these......"
He then reads a series of standard truther stuff, no plane hit the pentagon, shot down by American missiles, remote controlled planes blah blah.
Ron Paul LAUGHED at the assertions (look at the tape, link below), called them "BIZARRE," and "PREPOSTEROUS" and said he had never even heard of them, and certainly did not BELIEVE them.
Glenn Beck Interview with Ron Paul in 2007
So we have Glenn Beck who says it is CLEAR from his interviews Paul is NOT NOR HAS BEEN a truther and asks Ron Paul to affirm. Paul affirms this, mocks the views, and repudiates them outright, but we are to believe you because you with your scintillating zeroed in grasp of truth have determined that "abandoned" in an interview means HE ONCE HELD SUCH VIEWS..... even though Glen Beck says his interviews prove that is not true.
OK, I think I have it now. Damn! and I thought TRUTHER logic was twisted!
Here is the link, btw, which you clearly had access to, as it is one link UNDER the google hit on "Paul Truther." I guess you were just too busy to address that. I am sure there are no honesty issues with your presentation.
I do wish to thank you, though. I am going to make a vanity of our exchange as a great example of how a Ron Paul hater argues and the high ethical standards to which you hold in making your case. You will be able to find this argument, preserved for all to read, on my home page. Look for the vanity, as well
You have done Free Republic a great service, sir. I thank you.