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.
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.