Ron Paul IS a 9/11 truther.

[Mouthwash]

I'm not trolling or anything this time. Watch it.


Link to video.

He was being interviewed by the conspiracy theorist group 'We Are Change.' Guess he wasn't expecting to be asked that. But still, holy crap.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Okay, now we can finally ban you, right?

(kidding)

 

[Synobun]

Please stop.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I didn't hear the part where Dr Paul claimed that aliens, Bush, or the CIA were responsible.

Rejection of 9/11 conspiracy theory

Paul does not believe the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks were a government conspiracy and has explicitly denied being a 9/11 "truther", arguing that the issue is not a conspiracy but a failure of bureaucracy.[365][366] He believes the 9/11 Commission Report's main goal was "to protect the government and to protect their ineptness—not […] to do this so they can use this as an excuse to spread the war […] Some who did want to spread the war would use it as an opportunity. But, it wasn't something that was deliberately done."[365][368] He does not think the government would have staged such an attack.[369] When asked whether "9/11 was orchestrated by the government", Paul responded, "Absolutely not."[370] Paul has stated that he is concerned that someone might create a "contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident" to justify the invasion of Iran or suspend the democratic process, adding, "Let's hope I'm wrong about this one."[330]

So this is your evidence he must be a "truther"? That he responded to the questions of some woman in an extremely noisy environment by stating he thought other matters were far more important?

 

[Mouthwash]

I didn't hear the part where Dr Paul claimed that aliens, Bush, or the CIA were responsible.

So this is your evidence he must be a "truther"? That he responded to the questions of some woman in an extremely noisy environment by stating he thought other matters were far more important?

Sooner or later you'll learn that debating by quoting people isn't the most effective strategy. Um, and of course he won't officially say it. Didn't he just say that he wasn't going to come out with it because he couldn't handle the "controversy?"

Did any of you watch the video, by any chance?

 

[Lord of Elves]

Sooner or later you'll learn that debating by quoting people isn't the most effective strategy. Um, and of course he won't officially say it. Didn't he just say that he wasn't going to come out with it because he couldn't handle the "controversy?"

So much for the "Ron Paul speaks his mind and is honest, unlike all the other filthy Washington politician liars!" defense.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I didn't hear the part where Dr Paul claimed that aliens, Bush, or the CIA were responsible.

So this is your evidence he must be a "truther"? That he responded to the questions of some woman in an extremely noisy environment by stating he thought other matters were far more important?

Sooner or later you'll learn that debating by quoting people isn't the most effective strategy. Um, and of course he won't officially say it. Didn't he just say that he wasn't going to come out with it because he couldn't handle the "controversy?"

Did any of you watch the video, by any chance?

I just did, frankly, I couldn't hear him very well precisely because of the noise and frankly, if I were in that noisy of an environment, I wouldn't be able to concentrate, let alone make much sense

For the record, I am not a 9/11 truther. I believe that what they said happened did in fact happen. However, in a hypothetical universe where the government knew about the attack, I still don't believe they would have stopped it. It would be far more benefitial to the state (At the expense of everyone else) to allow the attack to happen and then use the attack as a method to centralize their power.

For the record, if any such attack were to happen now, I would 100% side with the truthers. There is no way the government could ever NOT know about such an attack with the kind of security we have right now unless they are total idiots (Which they are, but not that much)

If Ron Paul were a truther that wouldn't stop me from supporting him. Who cares? He knows how to stop the attacks, and its not through police state tactics. Good enough for me.

 

[Mouthwash]

So much for the "Ron Paul speaks his mind and is honest, unlike all the other filthy Washington politician liars!" defense.

What makes you think I support him?

Anyway, it is impossible to be fully honest as a politician.

 

[JollyRoger]

If he knows how to stop the attacks, why did 9/11 happen on his watch?

 

[Lord of Elves]

If Ron Paul were a truther that wouldn't stop me from supporting him. Who cares? He knows how to stop the attacks, and its not through police state tactics. Good enough for me.

The irony is that on the whole, the "police state tactics" of judicious geopolitical intervention, military and economic aid to foreign states, and the contracting of defense corporations and the use of private enterprise to assist the state in combating foreign and domestic terrorism probably only enriches the private enterprise producers.

But I guess whoever it is that's supposed to benefit from libertarianism is subjective from the perspective of the libertarian.

 

[Mouthwash]

Stay on topic, please.

 

[GhostWriter16]

So much for the "Ron Paul speaks his mind and is honest, unlike all the other filthy Washington politician liars!" defense.

In that case, he would have ticked off a lot of fans either way, for no good reason. While I admit that that is perhaps a flaw, it is a fairly minor one. And it is indeed possible that he is unsure.

The difference between Ron Paul and a normal politician is that Ron Paul is perfectly willing to tick off large groups of people if he actually has a valid reason to do so. Ron Paul isn't going to be quiet about his view on Israel, legalizing hard drugs, or the Patriot Act just because his stances are opposed by the vast majority of Republicans (Probably "And democrats" as well, but they don't necessarily matter quite as much because the only Democrats that would defect and vote for Ron Paul are the ones that agree with him on some or all of those controversial stances).

Most politicians that are running for President basically toe the party line on every issue and its really just a matter of how conservative or how liberal they are. Santorum is also a bit of an abnormality in that he quite openly admits (Not in so many words) that he's a theocrat and barely gives a crap about fiscal conservatism when compared to social conservatism. But since I don't care about Santroum whatsoever and would have likely supported Obama over him much as I did over Romney, I won't bother to pursue this line of thought any further. Discussing Ron Paul is much more interesting

Regardless, I do wish he had answered the question, but frankly, I can't honestly say I would have necessarily actually done so. It may have been noble, but its already noble to be willing to tick off so many people over things that actually matter.

Nobody's perfect either, not even Ron Paul. That doesn't mean that he isn't a heck of a lot more honest, forthright, and sensible than pretty much anyone else in Washington DC.

If he knows how to stop the attacks, why did 9/11 happen on his watch?

He wasn't the President. Bush was. Of course, Bush likely knew how as well, but unlike Ron Paul, would never actually do it if he had the authority.

 

[Lord of Elves]

It may have been noble, but its already noble to be willing to tick off so many people over things that actually matter.

Pointless and self-aggrandizing contrarianism doesn't a good politician make and shouldn't replace actual political discourse.

He wasn't the President. Bush was. Of course, Bush likely knew how as well, but unlike Ron Paul, would never actually do it if he had the authority.

Do you have any factual evidence to back that claim up?

 

[Crezth]

Stop making threads, please.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Pointless and self-aggrandizing contrarianism doesn't a good politician make and shouldn't replace actual political discourse.



Do you have any factual evidence to back that claim up?

Yeah, the fact that Osama told us why:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_Osama_bin_Laden_hate_the_United_States

While Osama Bin Laden was certainly evil, using terrorism as a political weapon implies that you are trying to accomplish something through it, so for him to lie about his goals wouldn't make much sense.

 

[Mouthwash]

Stop making threads, please.

Why?

I find it amusing that people have already decided I'm trolling based on my past threads. Quite a study in human bias.

 

[JollyRoger]

He wasn't the President. Bush was. Of course, Bush likely knew how as well, but unlike Ron Paul, would never actually do it if he had the authority.

Paul was too busy succumbing to the lifted skirt and perfumed inner thigh of the shrimp farmer lobby to even try to convince Bush to do the right thing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Paul was too busy succumbing to the lifted skirt and perfumed inner thigh of the shrimp farmer lobby to even try to convince Bush to do the right thing.

I explained this to you. You didn't even bother responding.

You're just hoping that someone as ignorant as you will look at this post and conclude that Dr. Paul is not a principled man because of an unprincipled attack against his ethics.

There wasn't any inconsistency.

I'd actually be interested in discussing the implications of earmarks to libertarian philosophy in another thread, but you'll probably just remain ignorant so there's no point

 

[Lord of Elves]

Dr. Paul

He's a gynecologist, not a statesman.

I'd actually be interested in discussing the implications of earmarks to libertarian philosophy in another thread, but you'll probably just remain ignorant so there's no point

I don't understand how you expect law-abiding citizens to be taken in by a philosophy which you represent as supporting the treason of a handful of slave-owning aristocrats who killed hundreds of thousands of people in defense of their own short term, inefficient financial gain, as well as in support of another such war (if necessary) to destroy the United States... among other such things in the "cons" section of libertarianism.

 

[JollyRoger]

I explained this to you. You didn't even bother responding.

You're just hoping that someone as ignorant as you will look at this post and conclude that Dr. Paul is not a principled man because of an unprincipled attack against his ethics.

There wasn't any inconsistency.

I'd actually be interested in discussing the implications of earmarks to libertarian philosophy in another thread, but you'll probably just remain ignorant so there's no point

It's not my fault that he has a fetish for shrimp farmer lobbyists.