Ron Paul IS a 9/11 truther.

[Thedrin]

Ghostwriter16
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.

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.

The part about the truthers claims that always struck me as ridiculous isn't the belief that the government knew what was happening in advance, but the belief that the government would let it happen once they did know. The intelligence gathering operations that bring in the information about the impending attack involve too many people to keep their knowledge of the affair secret.

I'm certainly not saying that people in power wouldn't use it for political or personal gain once it happened. Nor am I saying that there are no monumental events that cannot be orchestrated or silently approved by the executive without it becoming public, but 9/11 isn't one of those.

 

[civver_764]

Lol I remember when I was 14. I was such a hardcore truther, it's all I would talk about for weeks after seeing Loose Change.

 

[Grisu]

Why?

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

Do you know "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

 

[Formaldehyde]

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

Sure I watched it. And I even tried to understand what was stated despite all the noise. Why do people constantly try to get him to respond to their questions in such terrible conditions, much less deliberately edit his responses so the context is lost?

But again, he doesn't allege that 9/11 was caused by aliens, Bush, or the tooth fairy. Now does he? He's just responding to her questions about IMF and his own views regarding 9/11, which are well known.

At no point does he state anything which would even possibly mistake him for a "truther", as you allege. By merely talking to this woman doesn't mean he shares her views.

There is more than sufficient reason to find fault with Dr. Paul without making stuff up.

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

Wouldn't desisting from chronic meddling in the affairs of other countries eventually stop terrorism?

 

[Leoreth]

Why?

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

You have already admitted that you don't make threads to "debate" anymore, only to anger the bleeding-heart liberal masses. That's not human bias, that's just taking your own words at face value.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

You have already admitted that you don't make threads to "debate" anymore, only to anger the bleeding-heart liberal masses. That's not human bias, that's just taking your own words at face value.

Oooooohhhhh, you've stirred the beast and you're gonna totally get owned now.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

It's true. The government did do 9/11. If you don't believe me, read the opinion peace Santa Claus wrote for The Onion recently.

 

[Mouthwash]

Sure I watched it. And I even tried to understand what was stated despite all the noise. Why do people constantly try to get him to respond to their questions in such terrible conditions, much less deliberately edit his responses so the context is lost?

But again, he doesn't allege that 9/11 was caused by aliens, Bush, or the tooth fairy. Now does he? He's just responding to her questions about IMF and his own views regarding 9/11, which are well known.

At no point does he state anything which would even possibly mistake him for a "truther", as you allege. By merely talking to this woman doesn't mean he shares her views.

There is more than sufficient reason to find fault with Dr. Paul without making stuff up.

I'll grant that it doesn't prove 100% that he's a truther, but the context is clear. He DIRECTLY RESPONDED to a question about why he wouldn't come out with the truth about 9/11, and his excuse was that he needed to deal with other things, and that the controversy would be "too much." He doesn't mention exactly what he believes caused it, but that means we don't know what kind of truther he is. You're just grasping and demanding a far larger burden of proof then is required, and your ridiculous excuses ("oh, he officially denied believing it so that means he can't believe even though I just heard him say why he wasn't going to come out with it") aren't helping your case one bit.

Btw, Dr. Paul is definitely an extremist. The Mises institute isn't a "libertarian" organization, it's a straight up anarchist movement that affirms the right of secession. They're basically Rothbardians, and I know people from there who ARE truthers, who have watched this video, and agreed that it was proof of Ron Paul believing it. So it isn't that far-fetched to believe he might be one simply because of his background.

You have already admitted that you don't make threads to "debate" anymore, only to anger the bleeding-heart liberal masses. That's not human bias, that's just taking your own words at face value.

1. Please tell me where I said I would never make a serious thread again.

2. Please tell me how you got this confused with a thread designed to jab liberals. I don't see anything that could indicate that.

Do you know "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

Yes. If only the boy recorded and showed the villagers a video of the wolf as I'm doing here.

Next time, I'll wait at least a week after trolling or doing anything unserious so that people don't whine like this. I just showed direct EVIDENCE of Paul being a truther. There's nothing trollish about this, unless you just looked the thread and decided based on the title what I was doing.

 

[JollyRoger]

Who needs a title? The username is enough.

 

[Leoreth]

1. Please tell me where I said I would never make a serious thread again.

I'm tempted to, but that would require me to read your posts again and I could do without that.

2. Please tell me how you got this confused with a thread designed to jab liberals. I don't see anything that could indicate that.

What confused me is that you call Paul's evasive ramblings "evidence" and then act offended when people don't take you seriously when you already said you don't want to make serious threads again.

But it's funny to see you act out your superiority complex when you attribute peoples' frustration with your style to your great trolling efforts.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The part about the truthers claims that always struck me as ridiculous isn't the belief that the government knew what was happening in advance, but the belief that the government would let it happen once they did know. The intelligence gathering operations that bring in the information about the impending attack involve too many people to keep their knowledge of the affair secret.


I'm certainly not saying that people in power wouldn't use it for political or personal gain once it happened. Nor am I saying that there are no monumental events that cannot be orchestrated or silently approved by the executive without it becoming public, but 9/11 isn't one of those.

Maybe they would be unable to do it, I'm willing to give you that (I think the Leviathan is more deviously intelligent than that, but maybe not). But I certainly believe if they could, they would.

]I'll grant that it doesn't prove 100% that he's a truther, but the context is clear. He DIRECTLY RESPONDED to a question about why he wouldn't come out with the truth about 9/11, and his excuse was that he needed to deal with other things, and that the controversy would be "too much." He doesn't mention exactly what he believes caused it, but that means we don't know what kind of truther he is. You're just grasping and demanding a far larger burden of proof then is required, and your ridiculous excuses ("oh, he officially denied believing it so that means he can't believe even though I just heard him say why he wasn't going to come out with it") aren't helping your case one bit.

Ron Paul may or may not be a truther. I'm not saying he isn't. But he didn't say that he was. Not in that video. He said he didn't want to discuss the controversy, and his reason was obvious, he knows that there are both non-truthers and truthers who support him, and it would have been pointless. This is an exceedingly rare instance where Ron Paul actually seems to be playing politics. Which I can definitely understand, since it doesn't mean one thing regarding how Ron Paul would actually govern.

Btw, Dr. Paul is definitely an extremist.

I'm inclined to agree. So am I. At least if by "Extremist" you mean "Compared to today's political climate." Considering the simplicity of the current US politicial structure, to NOT be an extremist in comparison to it is almost like having no principles.

The Mises institute isn't a "libertarian" organization, it's a straight up anarchist movement that affirms the right of secession.

Any libertarian worth their salt would at least affirm some level of the right to secession. And not wanting one singular government to rule 300 million people doesn't necessarily mean supporting no government at all. Frankly, I'd rather be ruled from the state, county, or even town level than the Federal level for the most part. Easier to vote with your feet, or stand your ground and influence policy. But that doesn't mean I'm an anarchist.

The Mises Institute is mostly anarchists of course, although I don't really think Ron Paul is an anarchist. If he were, I would still support him, afterall, what I want is on the way to anarchism anyway, and my current views are probably closer to Rothbarian anarchism than they are to the status quo. But I think its fairly unlikely he's an anarchist considering how he has voted. He is generally OK with certain state level laws, but the biggest reason is his vote in the AUMF on Afghanistan. A true anarchist would have voted no by default. Ron Paul initially voted yes, although he rightly regretted it due to the fact that the Bush administration used it to start a ten year war.

They're basically Rothbardians, and I know people from there who ARE truthers, who have watched this video, and agreed that it was proof of Ron Paul believing it. So it isn't that far-fetched to believe he might be one simply because of his background.

No, its proof that Ron Paul MIGHT believe it. That doesn't mean he definitely did. A Rothbardian who was a truther would probably want Ron Paul to believe it, so they'd be more quick to accept that he did. I'd kind of rather he didn't, although it wouldn't change my view of him much, so I'm more inclined to argue that he did not.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'll grant that it doesn't prove 100% that he's a truther, but the context is clear. He DIRECTLY RESPONDED to a question about why he wouldn't come out with the truth about 9/11, and his excuse was that he needed to deal with other things, and that the controversy would be "too much."...

So do you now admit that your subject bar is just so much utter nonsense? That he was responding quite honestly to her question, which the maker if this video decided to take completely out of context by intentionally editing out the rest of his response? That his version of the "truth" really has nothing at all to do with the "truthers" based on his numerous comments regarding the incident?

A quick google search shows the only people who actually think Dr. Paul is a truther are those who are frequently seen wearing tin foil hats themselves.

Red State: Ron Paul Goes Full Metal Truther

Real Clear Politics: Ron Paul Is a 9/11 Truther & That Disqualifies Him

Michelle Malkin: Trutheriness and Ron Paul

 

[Mouthwash]

So do you now admit that your subject bar is just so much utter nonsense? That he was responding quite honestly to her question, which the maker if this video decided to take completely out of context by intentionally editing out the rest of his response? That his version of the "truth" really has nothing at all to do with the "truthers" based on his numerous comments regarding the incident?

A quick google search shows the only people who actually think Dr. Paul is a truther are those who are frequently seen wearing tin foil hats themselves.

Red State: Ron Paul Goes Full Metal Truther

Real Clear Politics: Ron Paul Is a 9/11 Truther & That Disqualifies Him

Michelle Malkin: Trutheriness and Ron Paul

Including these nutters?

Nice ad hominem, btw. Simply because the conspiracy theorists are nuts doesn't mean they can't make a valid point, or even identify one of their own.

Kindly provide the slightest explanation as to how this was taken out of context. Did he make a complete retraction after the video ended and said that he mistakenly thought she had asked him about some other thing that he wouldn't reveal because it is too "controversial?"

 

[warpus]

I'm inclined to agree. So am I. At least if by "Extremist" you mean "Compared to today's political climate." Considering the simplicity of the current US politicial structure, to NOT be an extremist in comparison to it is almost like having no principles.

You two are extremists not in any relative sense, but because you put ideology as a guidebook for life, over other things.

That's only my take on it though

 

[GhostWriter16]

You two are extremists not in any relative sense, but because you put ideology as a guidebook for life, over other things.

That's only my take on it though

"Ideology" is just a codeword, it says nothing about the goodness or the badness of the relevant ideology. Some ideologies are better than others.

Libertarian ideology just says, to varying degrees, that government is not special and aggression aggression even if done by government.

If that makes me an extremist, fine

Regarding Bush II and 9/11, saying that Bush was happy that it happened is not the same thing as saying that it was an inside job. And it is even more true that what Ron Paul actually said, that Bush used it as an excuse for Iraq, is not the same thing as calling it an inside job.

I don't know if Bush II was quite evil enough to already be thinking about Iraq that early in is Presidency. I wouldn't be surprised, however.

 

[Lord of Elves]

"Ideology" is just a codeword, it says nothing about the goodness or the badness of the relevant ideology. Some ideologies are better than others.

I don't... what? You're telling me the word "ideology" as in, the dictionary-endorsed noun, has no meaning?

Of course ideology is just "a codeword". Any system of beliefs is an ideology. What are you even saying?

 

[Mouthwash]

"Ideology" is just a codeword, it says nothing about the goodness or the badness of the relevant ideology. Some ideologies are better than others.

Libertarian ideology just says, to varying degrees, that government is not special and aggression aggression even if done by government.

If that makes me an extremist, fine

Regarding Bush II and 9/11, saying that Bush was happy that it happened is not the same thing as saying that it was an inside job. And it is even more true that what Ron Paul actually said, that Bush used it as an excuse for Iraq, is not the same thing as calling it an inside job.

I don't know if Bush II was quite evil enough to already be thinking about Iraq that early in is Presidency. I wouldn't be surprised, however.

9/11 came as a complete surprise to Bush, and not as a good one. He specifically spoke out against "nation-building" and intended to withdraw America to a moderate stance in the world (seeing as the threat of the Cold War was over and America was dominant). A totally unexpected turn of events defined his presidency.

 

[GhostWriter16]

9/11 came as a complete surprise to Bush, and not as a good one. He specifically spoke out against "nation-building" and intended to withdraw America to a moderate stance in the world (seeing as the threat of the Cold War was over and America was dominant). A totally unexpected turn of events defined his presidency.

I know what his intentions were at the onset. I would have an easier time believing that if all he did was attack Afghanistan, which I at least understand even if I disagree with it. But his attack on Iraq makes this tough to believe. Iraq had absolutely no relation to 9/11 at all. Is it really that implausible that Bush wanted an excuse for revenge?

I'm not necessarily saying that means he was happy that 9/11 happened, but considering he killed far, far more people in Iraq, its not really THAT much of a stretch.

For the record, I don't really think Bush was happy about 9/11 as Ron Paul seems to have been implying, but I certainly think he was more than willing to use it.