Ron Paul seems to be dividing and conquering very subtly right now

[CaptainAmerica]

Notice that in the last 2 debates Ron Paul opened 2 big can of worms on Rick Perry knowing that other candidates would take the bait and run with it by attacking Rick Perry. The funny thing is that Rick Perry and the other candidates are hypocrites, and so you will see them destroying eachother while Ron Paul pretty much walks away scotch free. The only thing we need to worry about is Rick Santorums neo-con propaganda. Does anyone have any links to a Rick Santorum website that has the same fashion of the Rick Perry website showing the hypocrisies ?

[brushfire]

Personally, I see froth as nothing to worry about. To acknowledge him is to give him more credit than he's worth.

Santorum is the designated Paul antagonist - it would be harmful if the rest of the candidates did not have so much baggage. It might also be harmful if Santorum was intelligent - he just smirks and makes froth while Paul rips him to shreds. Some of the best Paul comments this cycle have been responses to frothy.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't agree. Ron has to do a better job of making his point. He can cite the 9-11 commission report. He can cite Scheurer. He can do any number of things to make it clear that he is not justifying the 9-11 attack. We know what he means, but others do not. That is his responsibility to present it better.

[fisharmor]

Yeah, if he was on the ball last night, he would have quoted Bin Laden saying in 2004 that the goal is to bankrupt the US,
and then pointed out that he seems to have achieved his goal, while we still haven't even declared one.

[trey4sports]

I don't agree. Ron has to do a better job of making his point. He can cite the 9-11 commission report. He can cite Scheurer. He can do any number of things to make it clear that he is not justifying the 9-11 attack. We know what he means, but others do not. That is his responsibility to present it better.

Agreed.

Although i'd love to think this is all part of Ron Paul's grand strategic plan but i believe that the truth is more like Ron just goes out there and tells the truth.

[jmdrake]

I don't agree. Ron has to do a better job of making his point. He can cite the 9-11 commission report. He can cite Scheurer. He can do any number of things to make it clear that he is not justifying the 9-11 attack. We know what he means, but others do not. That is his responsibility to present it better.

Well we as a movement gave Ron all kinds of positive feedback over his "Giuliani moment". Just sayin'. I was saying back in 2008 that he needed to come with something other than blowback. I got attacked for saying that. 9/11 is at least a time to talk about the failure of incompetent government bureaucracy with the justice department getting in the way of the FBI. Or re-craft the "blowback" argument. Or talk about how our government funded what would become Al Qaeda just like Obama is cooperating with Al Qaeda in Libya. There's a whole host of ways to say this better.

[gb13]

I don't agree. Ron has to do a better job of making his point. He can cite the 9-11 commission report. He can cite Scheurer. He can do any number of things to make it clear that he is not justifying the 9-11 attack. We know what he means, but others do not. That is his responsibility to present it better.

This,


Yeah, if he was on the ball last night, he would have quoted Bin Laden saying in 2004 that the goal is to bankrupt the US,
and then pointed out that he seems to have achieved his goal, while we still haven't even declared one.

and this.

He did a great job overall, but if he had cited the Pentagon, the CIA, and the 9/11 Comission stating that our foreign policy was the motivation for the attacks, then segued into Bin Laden saying that the goal is to bait the U.S. into an un-winnable war, and lead us into bankruptcy, he would have hit an absolute home run.

He could have even asked Santorum something like, "Rick, if you don't believe the authorities on this subject; if you don't believe the Pentagon, the 9/11 Commission reports, our own CIA, the Department of Defense, and our brave men and women overseas, who do you believe? Where are your opinions coming from? Surely you must be basing your opinions on something, so please, cite me some references and I'll look into them at length, but I sincerely doubt you'll be able to find any sources that even approach the legitimacy and authority of the ones I have just cited".

He would have made Santorum look like an uneducated fool, and would have really got the audience thinking. Instead of "boos" we would have witnessed the deafening silence of a truly contemplative audience.

[Steve-in-NY]

Its all good. The people that "dont get it" get schooled within the next week. Watch the poll #s go up.
If you're right, then no press is bad press - so bring it on.

[acptulsa]

You all seem awfully convinced he can fit a whole lot into a thirty second response--or that people will look up a lot based on a response they don't understand. Sometimes you just have to get them mad enough to go foaming at the mouth all over the internet--and getting pwned--to make them think.

I believe the OP is right.

[Peace&Freedom]

Well we as a movement gave Ron all kinds of positive feedback over his "Giuliani moment". Just sayin'. I was saying back in 2008 that he needed to come with something other than blowback. I got attacked for saying that. 9/11 is at least a time to talk about the failure of incompetent government bureaucracy with the justice department getting in the way of the FBI. Or re-craft the "blowback" argument. Or talk about how our government funded what would become Al Qaeda just like Obama is cooperating with Al Qaeda in Libya. There's a whole host of ways to say this better.

QFT. The 9/11 truth advocates here have been pointing out for years that the blowback argument is a "left brain" or logical case for non-interventionism, but without a "right brain" or emotional complement that exposes how the government has fooled or manipulated the public into war after war, it falls on deaf ears. The neo-con "they did it to us, so whatever we do in response is okay" is an emotional trump card that makes most people disregard blowback, or view it as insensitive to even bring up in the context of "getting vengeance for the victims of terrorism."

Paul has to address the issue both rationally (as he does) and emotionally hit back with "the government has been lying to you" (expose US sponsoring of jihadists, false flags and the like), or it's going to continue to be like trying to fight the warhawks with one hand tied behind his back.

[Rudeman]

Next time Santorum brings this up Ron Paul needs to respond by saying something like " Do you disagree with the CIA, the 9/11 commission etc. (name the credible people who agree with him)? My position is no different than theirs."

Then if Ron wants to explain in detail he can but he should really use a rebuttal like that to backup his argument.

This would really put Santorum on the spot, and would put a lot more credibility into Paul's argument. We all know Ron Paul is right but he needs to convince others that he's right and this imo would be an effective way of doing it.