Gudis
Member
I still like Ron Paul, but his 9/11 truth movement leanings have pissed me off enough to go for Thompson.
Paul Vs. Thompson
- Thread starter eric_t12
- Start date
- Status
budney
member
For the record, he never said the government was behind 9/11. He only said that it can't be trusted. He's right.
R127
Member
I'm beginning to wonder if Paul's 9/11 truth that has some people pissed off is simply the fact that we're playing GI Joe in Iraq while Bin Laden is living a life of ease. Truth is we never took down the man who claimed responsibility for the attack that's been used as a free pass for all sorts of military adventurism and awful legislation.
To my mind, Ron Paul is much like Ross Perot. While I agree in principle with a lot of what he says he steps over that 'threshhold' a bit too often and comes across as a "looney toon". His 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense is but one example that comes to mind. When he stated that 9/11 was the 'fault' of the United States , well that pretty much clinched it for me. The only thing missing was the 'tin foil hat'.
Ron
Ron
rickomatic
Member
Hmmmmm......
I must say...I've never seen them together......
I must say...I've never seen them together......
"9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense"
Hey Ron,
If you say "9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense" over and over again it might make it all go away.
conspiracy theory
–noun
1. a theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.
2. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.
Seems like the case to me.
helpless, you're not improving things by making Paul out to be like Lyndon LaRouche instead of Ross Perot.
People still think fondly of Ross, even if he DID bring us 8 years of the Slimebucket in Chief. It's not like the GOP offered a great alternative.
LaRouche, on the other hand, is not someone that is highly regarded by many.
People still think fondly of Ross, even if he DID bring us 8 years of the Slimebucket in Chief. It's not like the GOP offered a great alternative.
LaRouche, on the other hand, is not someone that is highly regarded by many.
Erebus
Member
Someone mentioned a Thompson/Paul ticket. Not sure I like that. I would like to see a Thompson/Romney ticket and put Ron Paul in the cabinet where he would have some real impact.
Romney is making huge strides in the middle and northern states but tanking in the south. Thompson I expect would do well in the south.
Romney is making huge strides in the middle and northern states but tanking in the south. Thompson I expect would do well in the south.
TrybalRage
Member
Erebus said:
Romney? Mr. I-look-like-an-actor-playing-a-president-with-my-superhero-chin AWB signing Romney? The hell with that.
TT
member
…
Yes, everyone who doesn’t agree with your take on foreign policy is a racist.
budney
member
If I ask you to explain why it's justified to kill tens of thousands of innocents, will you start in (as everyone seems to) about how "they" hate us (for our freedoms, maybe)? Well, let's find out. Can you please explain why it's justified to kill tens of thousands of people who never did anything to us?
--Len.
PS Just noticed this thread, coincidentally.
pcosmar
member
RonSC said.
Which is another way of saying , I have no idea what I'm talking about. I just want to post something against Ron Paul, even if it is not true.
pcosmar
member
For the record, this is Dr. Pauls position on the "Truther" Question.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
TT
member
So because I call you on your lowbrow tactics I’m required to submit a position paper for your review? I’ve got a better idea- why don’t you demonstrate why everyone who disagrees with you on Middle East policy must be a racist?
Marshall
Member
And, please explain specifically who these are?
budney
member
I can't, but that's OK: I never claimed they were. That's something you made up.
I can prove that a great many of them are, however. If you really feel it's necessary for me to quote Rush, Malkin, Coulter, Hannity, Savage, Quinn, et nauseating cetera. All the quotes take the same form: first, they condemn "radical, wahhabist Islam," and then they point out that no Muslims have expressed outrage against the terrorists, which demonstrates that they mean ALL Muslims and not just a FEW muslims.
--Len.
budney
member
That's easy. Bush copped publicly to killing 30,000 Iraqis. Current estimates range from 60,000 through 600,000, depending who you believe, but even 30,000 is "tens of thousands," so the exact number doesn't matter at all.
Unless those Iraqis were all members of Al Qaeda or otherwise terrorists, they were innocent of any crimes against the United States. There you have it: tens of thousands of innocents.
--Len.
71Commander
Member
Run Fred, run.
Marshall
Member
Will you show us that they were not members or Al Qaeda, other terrorists, members of the Iraqi army or Republican guard? And give me a link to your information where Bush copped to saying he killed 30,000 innocent men and women?
budney
member
Being a member of the Iraqi army is not a crime. As for "Al Qaeda and other terrorists," give me a freaking break. You think there are 30,000 terrorists in Iraq? Or any other country for that matter?
While that's not quite racist, it verges. It smacks of racism, or else of insanity.
--Len.
Marshall
Member
But Len, you're the one that is accusing Bush of killing 30,000 innocents, those not fighting us.
You claim yourself not to know if they are or not by the following statement.....
Budney said:
So, since you say that Bush has unequivocally killed 10's of thousands of innocents, I expect you to show me where you read and find that info? If you can't, just say so? If you can, show me?
Also, you didn't provide us a link to where Bush copped to saying he killed 30,000 innocent Iraqi men and women. ???
You claim yourself not to know if they are or not by the following statement.....
Budney said:
So, since you say that Bush has unequivocally killed 10's of thousands of innocents, I expect you to show me where you read and find that info? If you can't, just say so? If you can, show me?
Also, you didn't provide us a link to where Bush copped to saying he killed 30,000 innocent Iraqi men and women. ???
budney
member
Iraq Body Count
Average of 1,000 Dead Monthly in Baghdad Alone
100,000 Iraqi Dead
Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000
I said he copped to killing 30,000 Iraqis. You can watch it on video while you're there.
--Len.
Fifth Column
Member
He is not a "9/11 Truther" in any way. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
I think he is a nice enough man to talk to these people and not call them morons to their face. This Alex Jones guy invites him to talk on his radio show and he will kindly speak to them because they are a willing audience and would like to hear his views but don't call him a "9/11 truther" for that. Simply because of his anti-big-government views he will attract some stange folks. Being endorsed by this crowd means nothing since their views on 9/11 aren't reciprocated by Paul.
Reason: The position of the Student Scholars is that 9/11 was executed by the U.S. government. Do you agree or disagree with that?
Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.
Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?
Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated.
Paul: I'd say there's no evidence of that.
Reason: So what did you mean when you told Student Scholars you'd be open to a new 9/11 investigation?
Paul: Well, I think the more we know about what we went on is good. But I don't think there's any evidence of [an inside job] and I don't believe that. The blame goes to bad policy. And a lot of times bad policy is well-motivated.
I think he is a nice enough man to talk to these people and not call them morons to their face. This Alex Jones guy invites him to talk on his radio show and he will kindly speak to them because they are a willing audience and would like to hear his views but don't call him a "9/11 truther" for that. Simply because of his anti-big-government views he will attract some stange folks. Being endorsed by this crowd means nothing since their views on 9/11 aren't reciprocated by Paul.
- Status
