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.
The true cynics are the neocons who used 9-11 as a pretext to get us into a war, even though the secular Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11.
You might just be a Truther.
All libertarians have oddly liberal views - actually not just liberatl, but ultra kookdom hard leftist.
I truly hope your right and the Constitution stay’s.
Just who are you placing your chips on to keep it?
Rommney, Perry or ‘ol Third Way Gingrich.
Since you don't want to read his policy for yourself, you can trust me. I have read "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" by Ron Paul.
It is a collection of his speeches in the U.S. House of Representatives on a variety of topics over a span of several years.
Not so repugnant now, is it?
You were complaining and sounded dissatisfied, so I was helping you out! heh heh
JC
Have not yet decided, but no RomneButt and No to the Ron Foul.
Stay tuned. Your going to see a nationwide repudiation of the so called “front runners” very shortly.
Well said RKBA.
—In my view of things, there’s Obama and Paul...with their diplomacy view. One can question the efficiency or lack of effort done by at least one of them.
—Then there’s Reagan’s view of diplomacy, embedded intelligence (both propaganda, spying, overthrowing), and limited prudent engagement. Reagan was willing to compromise, but he spoke the truth about our enemies....Paul seems to think the current ones are harmless.
—Then there’s people like McCain, whom think war is the best option and are far too often like Patton....even though I tend to like Patton.
I lean to Reagan’s view and look at McCain and Paul as oddities in the party. It’s not as though they’re without merit on both sides, but they are too much themselves...
And I have listened to dozens of Paul’s speeches 80% of the time on foreign policy he sounds okay, but 20% of the time he says something absolutely horrendous and deal-breaking (making his whole speech null and void). Much like Perry saying ‘heartless’. I don’t think Paul is Reagan...only Reagan is Reagan.
That being said, I disagree with many on this board and I often think there’s a borderline fanaticism with the whole Muslim religion issue. Almost to the degree that I think genocide is acceptable to some...I will not support anyone like that. I’m Christian at heart and while I realize my thoughts of violence are of sin, I hope that peace can be acquired among the religions (at least to some extent)...and I shun such drastic broad views of any people or background.
I think the best policy is to make sure democracy or those who support democracy is crazy regimes...are properly supported and defended. Even though democracy surely has it’s flaws, it provides a blanket of tolerance and liberty.
They desperately want to believe that every ill is the result of American intervention in order to discredit intervention. That is demonstrably false; Doggedly sticking to it eventually requires you to simply lie.
- Admin Moderator
BRAVO!!!!
Your thread was successful in the zotting of some dead-ender Paulhroids.
Hats off to you pal!!
Hopefully, more to come
Whatever...
If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.
Or you can get raw with these strings.
How about this gamechanger from America's Got Talent (which they SHOULD have won).
Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.
Do it!
When Islam is used it is pitting Islam against all the rest. I do not know how that makes him secular.
That is true. He talks a good talk as far as the economy. But did nothing.
Then you do not understand the meaning of the word.
For a country to be non-secular, it means that there is a formal religious component to the government. The most obvious of course is Iran with their Theocracy at the top of their government.
Islam played no official role in the pre war iraq government. Therefore, by definition it was non-secular.
Fatwa’s are issued every day. Not every fatwa is directed to kill someone nor are they directed at the west.
Any muslim cleric can issue a fatwa. The fact that Saddam was not a cleric makes his use of the fatwa about as effective as my passing judgement on a position of the Catholic Church.
Saddam was a real bastard, but he knew how to motivate his people. His “fatwa” bull-shirt is just an example of that.
No joking from me in that regard. He used Muslims to do his dirty work but was not much of one himself at all.
hard core Islam wants to destroy us. it is that simple either we fight or do what we are doing at pretend they are not trying to destroy us.
it is easier to pretend while innocent people die
You are not arguing with me that Saddam issued FATWA's but you are arguing that the FATWA's were not official policy.
That is illogical.
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.