05-16-2011, 08:19 PM
Truthers are dumb, I don't think saying "we should get more details" about one of the most significant events in our history makes someone a truther, but I don't know all the details about his positions on this. He doesn't seem to be a truther, Jesse Ventura is a truther, their speech is very different. Then again, he might be.
Regardless of that, his foreign policy positions are actually far more sane than people give him credit for. He is against stomping around the globe as an imperial force, which resonates with a lot of people who are sick of America trying to police the whole damn planet.
He has strict liberarian positions on issues of personal freedoms and stuff like prositution and drug use. These are controversial opinions that do not jive well with social conservatives, but he stands by his positions with a convinction that few politicians have.
I respect Ron Paul for being in the US congress for so many years and remaining one of the most principled people in the entire government. Many times he is the sole person voting one way on a bill while literally every other person votes for it. Just because he's doing something different doesn't make him right, but this does show that he stands by his principles rather than caving into the washington establishment.
I have very many serious disagreements with Paul, and I would not vote for him, but I also see the sanity in some of his positions and criticisms of the status quo.
He can seem a little nutty at times, but the problem is that Washington is so far up it's own ass with everyone in office being as crooked as a dog's hind leg. When everyone in Washington is totally disconnected from reality and wrapped up in supporting special interest groups, anyone who throws a little bit of Truth into the debate is going to be ostracized as being "crazy". This doesn't mean that everything labeled crazy is true, but more often than not Truth is labeled as crazy by the establishment.
Paul displays real honesty, even when he's saying something extremely controversial, because he believes in it. I highly respect that. His principles come before politics, and every politician makes this claim but their actions speak louder than words.
He does not tow the party line at all, and frequently stands up to members of his own party, something that is rare amongst Democrats or Republicans.
One of the strongest areas I disagree with him is economics, and I am not a libertarian by any stretch, but I can see Paul as being an honest libertarian and not just a Republican who throws on the label to appeal to people.Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
05-16-2011, 08:33 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
The question was pretty vague - it's wording was "truth about 9/11", not "9/11 was an inside job". His pause before answering could have a been genuine confusion about the weird question and what it was supposed to mean.
Unfortunately for him, he stumbles into and bungles those sorts of situations all of the time, so I think there's good reason to take such an interpretation of the answer.
Jumping to such unwarranted conclusions is typical of your knee-jerk style though:)
Last edited by wilbur; 05-16-2011 at 08:39 PM.
05-16-2011, 08:57 PM
Ody, I hope that you know that I hold you in the highest respect on many levels, not the least of which is your profound knowledge of the subjects that you choose to post about. I also share a great many of your opinions I think; but in this case, and to be intellectually honest, I must submit that you are perhaps looking for a reason to believe that Congressman Paul is an adherent to the daft notions of the Truthers (who admittedly exist within the ranks of his supporters, just as the schmuck in the video that I posted exists in the ranks of self-professed Tea Partiers) to justify that preconceived notion.
Ron Paul did state his position on this issue quite clearly during the Fox News primary debate in 2008:
Ron Paul, from all that I can gather from him, is first and foremost about personal liberty. Everything and anything that threatens that is anathema to him. It's why he will not command his supporters to reject their own beliefs, regardless of how ludicrous they might be.
I'm pretty sure that King George found our Boston Tea Party and Declaration of Independence quite ludicrous, much to his chagrin. The 1st Amendment was conceived to protect the exercising of unpopular speech, not the popular; popular and inoffensive speech require no such protection and never have.
I recognize that there are many here that are averse to Ron Paul, especially with regard to his foreign/military policy views. As I have intimated before, were our economic standing as a nation in a different place, I would have precisely the same view. I further understand that the over-zealous tactics of his Internet minions in the past (i.e. forum/blog flooding, et al) have not done the reputation of his message any favors out there. However, I think that, regardless of whether he is a viable candidate for the presidency in 2012 (which I don't for a variety of reasons), I think it is foolhardy to dismiss his message out of hand just because of certain policy differences.
I do not seek to perpetuate the "Ron Paul Conflict" here, but I would like to say that Mr. Paul has been rather prescient about the fiscal situation that we now find ourselves in. More so than perhaps anyone else out there, including the existing members of the GOP field. People didn't listen, so here we are. I think he has earned a certain level of respect for that much at least, and with it a seat at the table of anyone who truly wishes to perpetuate intellectual honesty and, moreover, liberty.
PS> When I said I would shut up before... I lied. :p"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
05-16-2011, 09:02 PM
Here's the funny shit. If he got the Republican nomination...many on this board would pull the lever for him over Obama
For someone who's "nuts".....that would be quite interesting to see. :pGun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown
The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
"The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
05-16-2011, 09:27 PM
9-11 was an inside job. the Japs did it to get even for the abombs. don't ya think???Liberals: Obama's useful Idiots
05-16-2011, 09:28 PMIn most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.
In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
05-16-2011, 10:02 PM
In all fairness it works the same way with Democrats....
So is the garbage of party politics.
that being said...I stand by it and have a good hunch that most seeing a close race want the O gone.Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown
The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
05-17-2011, 12:43 AM
Much of what you posted in the OP is simply your own conjecture that I doubt you can back up with anything of substance or credible sources. It's simply what you believe based on tiny fragments of cherry-picked information cut and pasted from some talking points blog.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|