PDA

View Full Version : Tucker Carlson Warns: Be Nice To Ron Paul




lurpol
03-08-2012, 08:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT6WcGM2gmw

Broadcast: March 7, 2012
Special Report with Bret Baier

Chester Copperpot
03-08-2012, 08:34 PM
i used to like tucker.. fuck him

Feeding the Abscess
03-08-2012, 08:35 PM
Tucker Carlson is a psychopath.

donnay
03-08-2012, 09:06 PM
Tucker sold his soul.

Nathan Hale
03-08-2012, 09:23 PM
What's so bad about Tucker? The guy rolled up to Ron Paul's 08 convention in a limo with two prostitutes.

The Binghamton Patriot
03-08-2012, 09:27 PM
Tucker is a Neocon people don't go for the charade

Paulatized
03-08-2012, 09:28 PM
Tucker sold his soul.

What did he get for it???

Nathan Hale
03-08-2012, 09:32 PM
Tucker is a Neocon people don't go for the charade

Two things:

1. How is Tucker a Neocon?

2. You're in Binghamton? I went to college there.

newbitech
03-08-2012, 11:37 PM
who was that queefbag laughing at Ron Paul?

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 11:44 PM
Two things:
1. How is Tucker a Neocon?


Search for tucker on the forums, you'll figure it out. dude is straight-up homocidal.

aaroche26
03-08-2012, 11:51 PM
AA

donnay
03-08-2012, 11:54 PM
What did he get for it???

15 minutes of fame.

ZanZibar
03-09-2012, 12:19 AM
who was that queefbag laughing at Ron Paul?That would be Billy Kristol, Jr. The modern head neocon in the country. Look up his last name on the Forums and you learn all about him.

slamhead
03-09-2012, 12:25 AM
Cannot wait to prove Kristol wrong. What an assclown he is.

Sullivan*
03-09-2012, 12:51 AM
Little Billy is heading for an assfulla hurt.

satchelmcqueen
03-09-2012, 02:06 AM
f tucker! h every well could have helped ron to win but he didnt. f the guy. time of being nice is over!!

TheTexan
03-09-2012, 02:29 AM
There was an interview that went something like this
Carlson: "I do think the Iranians are evil people and need to be destroyed"
Some caller: "Hitler said similar things about the Jews"
Carlson: "Oh no, no no you got me all wrong. I'm nothing like Hitler. I don't think we should invade Iran. It would be too expensive"

thoughtomator
03-09-2012, 02:34 AM
What did he get for it???

$1,015.50

(insert evil grin until someone figures out what that means :D )

Butchie
03-09-2012, 02:47 AM
All the more reason that if Ron is not the nominee I'll do all I can to make sure the GOP loses.

randomname
03-09-2012, 04:00 AM
What did he get for it???

The Daily Caller. He's establishment through & through now.

Conza88
03-09-2012, 04:17 AM
He is like a seesaw, up one day, down the next... although after some promise in 08' he's been down ever since.

Justinfrom1776
03-09-2012, 04:28 AM
I still hope the Libertarian candidate is R.J. Harris instead of Gary Johnson.

and..

Dear Tucker,

Be as nice as you want to Ron Paul, he'll never endorse one of those 3 stooges.

Kristol,

Fuck You!

Mark37snj
03-09-2012, 04:30 AM
Tucker sold his soul.


What did he get for it???


The guy rolled up to Ron Paul's 08 convention in a limo with two prostitutes.

:D

Feeding the Abscess
03-09-2012, 04:38 AM
I still hope the Libertarian candidate is R.J. Harris instead of Gary Johnson.

and..

Dear Tucker,

Be as nice as you want to Ron Paul, he'll never endorse one of those 3 stooges.

Kristol,

Fuck You!

I'm pulling for Wrights, personally.

Revolution9
03-09-2012, 04:57 AM
What did he get for it???

A stupid frikkin' polka dot bowtie.

idiot.

Rev9

Revolution9
03-09-2012, 05:02 AM
15 minutes of fame.

And an asskicking full of enmity. Frikkin' loser. I'ld wipe that yuppy scum smirk off his face with a well placed comment or two and take it from there. I would turn the clown into cheez whiz drizzling its way through an electric toaster. He don't get no crossfire. he get's sustained fire with a holy singe to the bent of it. Pathetically primping punditry at its hog slop trough worst.

Rev9

luctor-et-emergo
03-09-2012, 05:17 AM
Kristol discredited himself, Ron is nationally at least at 15% in the polls right now.
He's winning from Obama in polls.
He has got 40% of the votes from Virginia.

How could he NOT throw 3% towards Johnson if he endorsed him? What does he think will happen ? Vote for Romney ?

eduardo89
03-09-2012, 06:12 AM
Tucker sold his soul.

And his bowties.

40oz
03-09-2012, 06:31 AM
Here's some entertaining insight into Tucker...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOxBQnnK_Ms

KingNothing
03-09-2012, 06:41 AM
What did he get for it???

A bow tie.

Czolgosz
03-09-2012, 06:53 AM
Those paychecks must be nice.

pacelli
03-09-2012, 07:17 AM
Hah.... So Tucker's version of being nice to Ron Paul was walking out on his emcee duties halfway through the rally for the republic in 2008????

Sorry Tuck but some of us just don't forget.

Nathan Hale
03-09-2012, 09:29 AM
Hah.... So Tucker's version of being nice to Ron Paul was walking out on his emcee duties halfway through the rally for the republic in 2008????

Sorry Tuck but some of us just don't forget.

??? I never heard about this back in 08.

Nathan Hale
03-09-2012, 09:32 AM
Regardless of whether or not Tucker's heart is good or evil, he's in the media, so I hold him to the same standard I hold everybody else in the media - does he or does he not help us? That clip shows Tucker helping us, so I give him kudos for it. It helps that I'm also a Gary Johnson fan so I appreciate the name drop. Either way, my sig file about sums it up.

specsaregood
03-09-2012, 09:36 AM
Regardless of whether or not Tucker's heart is good or evil, he's in the media, so I hold him to the same standard I hold everybody else in the media - does he or does he not help us? That clip shows Tucker helping us, so I give him kudos for it. It helps that I'm also a Gary Johnson fan so I appreciate the name drop. Either way, my sig file about sums it up.

It doesn't require "purity" to recognize that promoting mass homocide of millions of people that have never harmed us; is evil.

Liberty74
03-09-2012, 09:42 AM
Too late on being nice to Ron Paul.

Sorry fake conservatives and the establishment, you should have thought about that earlier.

jmdrake
03-09-2012, 09:48 AM
I will start this by saying I do not like Tucker Carlson. That said I understand what he was doing with Iran. Some people are so ignorant about geopolitics that they really believe that Iran is "suicidal" and wants a bomb to blow up Israel and start WW III. Some of them are Ron Paul supporters. I've talked with them here at RPF. They aren't neocons. They're just ignorant. I'm not calling them ignorant to be mean. I'm ignorant about some things.

Anyway, when talking to ignorant people sometimes it's best not to address their ignorance and make your argument from a position where they can agree with you. So Tucker agreed with the ignorant "Iran needs to be annihilated" position in order to be able to get those people to hear the "But that's not realistic because it would destroy our economy" message. It's a dangerous gambit. Some ignorant people think our own economic destruction is worth the price to "save Israel" and "stop Iran". But it least it gives some ignorant people some pause.

ZanZibar
03-09-2012, 10:03 AM
Anyway, when talking to ignorant people sometimes it's best not to address their ignorance Probably the best advice given on RPF. Ever.

I seem to recall some quote about wasting time arguring with an idiot makes you and idiot too or something.

Travlyr
03-09-2012, 10:20 AM
William Kristol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kristol) looks like a smart man he dresses up all fancy and stuff. He screws all that up by opening his mouth and speaking. If you are a member of the GOP establishment and are listening to William Kristol's advice ... don't ... it is bad advice.

There is plenty of evidence that Ron Paul is leading a peaceful revolution for liberty and that his supporters will not compromise. And there is a lot of them. The GOP has one last shot to matter. If Ron Paul is the GOP presidential nominee, then the GOP can takeover the political system. If not, they are toast and will go down in history as such. The Republican Party Platform of 1936 is what a lot of us thought we were supporting for decades. Sound money, a foreign policy of freedom, limited government. That is your choice this time GOP. Will you choose wisely? Time will tell.

William Kristol, "He (Ron Paul) is not going to be the GOP nominee."

How do you know that Billy Boy? Pray tell us. How do you KNOW that? Hummmm?

afmatt
03-09-2012, 10:37 AM
Hah.... So Tucker's version of being nice to Ron Paul was walking out on his emcee duties halfway through the rally for the republic in 2008????

Sorry Tuck but some of us just don't forget.

This... Tucker showed his true colors at the Rally, nothing he says now interests me, even if it is kind to Ron Paul.

jmdrake
03-09-2012, 12:00 PM
Probably the best advice given on RPF. Ever.

I seem to recall some quote about wasting time arguring with an idiot makes you and idiot too or something.

King Solomon said that.

Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.

TheTexan
03-09-2012, 12:10 PM
It's one thing to not address their ignorance, it's another thing entirely to reinforce it by repeating it. Tucker does NOT get a pass on this.

Nathan Hale
03-09-2012, 01:53 PM
It doesn't require "purity" to recognize that promoting mass homocide of millions of people that have never harmed us; is evil.

You're right, I was wrong to refer to my sig line, but the rest of my post stands. See my next post for details.

Nathan Hale
03-09-2012, 01:55 PM
Too late on being nice to Ron Paul.

Sorry fake conservatives and the establishment, you should have thought about that earlier.

We need to lose the holier-than-thou attitude. That's part of what kills the Libertarian Party year after year. Tucker is a part of the media, and therefore shouldn't be held to the same standard as a member of this movement. What matters is how he serves us. It's the same with Beck and the others. Do we get good coverage from them or bad coverage? If you ask me, we benefited from the words that came out of Tucker's mouth on that show, therefore kudos to him.

anaconda
03-09-2012, 07:37 PM
OMG! I just saw this video! PRICELESS seeing Bill Kristol pouting and being snippy about Ron Paul. Must be tough seeing his dinosaur neocon party imploding before his very eyes.

anaconda
03-09-2012, 07:47 PM
There is plenty of evidence that Ron Paul is leading a peaceful revolution for liberty and that his supporters will not compromise. And there is a lot of them. The GOP has one last shot to matter.

This is the approach I would have preferred Tucker to take, rather than the Gary Johnson endorsement approach. He should have asked Bill Kristol point blank how many Ron Paul primary voters WILL NOT vote for any other nominee, and to translate that number to the percentage of the general election vote. Also reminding Bill Kristol that Ron Paul polls 21% nationally in a hypothetical general election with Obama, Romney, and Dr. Paul as an independent. What would Kristol's answer be to what portion of that 21% are unwilling to vote for Romney in a 2-way general election race? Kristol definitely had his panties in a wad.

Nathan Hale
03-09-2012, 09:14 PM
He invoked Johnson because of Johnson's place as the most likely endorsee and he wanted to contextualize his statements. It's easier to make a point when you're using names than when you're using placeholders.

anaconda
03-09-2012, 09:58 PM
He invoked Johnson because of Johnson's place as the most likely endorsee and he wanted to contextualize his statements. It's easier to make a point when you're using names than when you're using placeholders.

Okay. But "Ron Paul voters will not vote for any other nominee" seems pretty clearly contextualized to me.

anaconda
03-09-2012, 10:10 PM
I will start this by saying I do not like Tucker Carlson. That said I understand what he was doing with Iran. Some people are so ignorant about geopolitics that they really believe that Iran is "suicidal" and wants a bomb to blow up Israel and start WW III. Some of them are Ron Paul supporters. I've talked with them here at RPF. They aren't neocons. They're just ignorant. I'm not calling them ignorant to be mean. I'm ignorant about some things.

Anyway, when talking to ignorant people sometimes it's best not to address their ignorance and make your argument from a position where they can agree with you. So Tucker agreed with the ignorant "Iran needs to be annihilated" position in order to be able to get those people to hear the "But that's not realistic because it would destroy our economy" message. It's a dangerous gambit. Some ignorant people think our own economic destruction is worth the price to "save Israel" and "stop Iran". But it least it gives some ignorant people some pause.

Very insightful. I hope you're right. And I hope you're right about Tucker. My boldest memory of Tucker is when he lambasted David Ray Griffin on MSNBC (1:37 - 1:50 are the diciest)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxKW3EqbfRE

Travlyr
03-10-2012, 03:26 AM
Very insightful. I hope you're right. And I hope you're right about Tucker. My boldest memory of Tucker is when he lambasted David Ray Griffin on MSNBC (1:37 - 1:50 are the diciest)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxKW3EqbfRE

Tucker totally destroys his credibility. Thanks for posting.

anaconda
03-10-2012, 05:59 AM
Tucker totally destroys his credibility. Thanks for posting.

How so? You're welcome, by the way.

Travlyr
03-10-2012, 06:04 AM
How so? You're welcome, by the way.

What I meant was that Tucker totally destroys his own credibility.

He did that by denying the facts of the 9/11 investigation and pretending that the facts don't matter.

GunnyFreedom
03-10-2012, 06:29 AM
$1,015.50

(insert evil grin until someone figures out what that means :D )

according to the current spot price, 30 oz of silver runs $1,029.60 ;)

anaconda
03-10-2012, 06:37 PM
What I meant was that Tucker totally destroys his own credibility.

He did that by denying the facts of the 9/11 investigation and pretending that the facts don't matter.

Ah! I actually thought you meant it the other way around. Thanks for setting me straight.

Nathan Hale
03-10-2012, 06:58 PM
Okay. But "Ron Paul voters will not vote for any other nominee" seems pretty clearly contextualized to me.

But it would be the wrong context, because it would imply that Paul didn't endorse and thus the flock was left to stray about. Tucker wanted to make the point of Paul specifically endorsing a non-Republican, and Johnson just happens to be a placeholder for that scenario.

anaconda
03-11-2012, 07:57 PM
But it would be the wrong context, because it would imply that Paul didn't endorse and thus the flock was left to stray about. Tucker wanted to make the point of Paul specifically endorsing a non-Republican, and Johnson just happens to be a placeholder for that scenario.

But it wouldn't be a wrong context because it is a clear, concise, highly relevant, and plausible theory that Paul supporters will withhold their votes from any other GOP nominee, thereby depriving said nominee from victory in the general election. Whomever else may receive their votes is essentially irrelevant.

Nathan Hale
03-12-2012, 08:01 PM
But it wouldn't be a wrong context because it is a clear, concise, highly relevant, and plausible theory that Paul supporters will withhold their votes from any other GOP nominee, thereby depriving said nominee from victory in the general election. Whomever else may receive their votes is essentially irrelevant.

Regardless of the veracity of your theory, it's not a strong case. Tucker needed to make his point without getting caught up in a side-debate about Paul supporters' intentions, so he inserted a filler endorsement to show that the GOP needs to court Paul.

Nathan Hale
03-12-2012, 08:31 PM
What I meant was that Tucker totally destroys his own credibility.

He did that by denying the facts of the 9/11 investigation and pretending that the facts don't matter.

Where did he deny the facts of the 9/11 investigation?

anaconda
03-12-2012, 11:39 PM
Tucker needed to make his point without getting caught up in a side-debate about Paul supporters' intentions,

It's not a "side debate" to state flatly the the legions of Paul supporters will withhold their vote for any other GOP nominee, and thereby deprive that nominee of victory. It becomes more of a side debate to begin speculating on whom Dr. Paul may or may not endorse or exactly whom the lethally withheld votes may or may not ultimately reside with.

anaconda
03-12-2012, 11:39 PM
oops double post

Nathan Hale
03-13-2012, 06:36 AM
It's not a "side debate" to state flatly the the legions of Paul supporters will withhold their vote for any other GOP nominee, and thereby deprive that nominee of victory. It becomes more of a side debate to begin speculating on whom Dr. Paul may or may not endorse or exactly whom the lethally withheld votes may or may not ultimately reside with.

Because it's not necessarily true that the legions of Paul supporters will withhold their vote from the GOP nominee. Just saying that "the GOP needs Paul because otherwise Paul supporters won't vote GOP" isn't a strong enough statement and invites picking apart the intentions of the many little groups that compromise Paul's support base, that's why Tucker inserted a placeholder to redirect Paul supporters so he could make the point quick and keep focus on the question of the GOP showing Paul some love.

Travlyr
03-13-2012, 06:51 AM
Where did he deny the facts of the 9/11 investigation?
At 4:20. Airplanes did cause fires, but those fires did not bring the buildings down. The buildings were brought down by explosive controlled demolition techniques. That is a proven fact.

Nathan Hale
03-13-2012, 06:55 AM
At 4:20. Airplanes did cause fires, but those fires did not bring the buildings down. The buildings were brought down by explosive controlled demolition techniques. That is a proven fact.

:rolleyes:

Yeahhhhhhhhhh.......

Travlyr
03-13-2012, 06:56 AM
:rolleyes:

Yeahhhhhhhhhh.......
Do you believe the scientific method of proof determines facts?

Nathan Hale
03-13-2012, 07:08 AM
Do you believe the scientific method of proof determines facts?

I believe in the scientific method, but that method only determines a few very specific facts related to the experiment. As we see with global warming advocates, the results of scientific experiments can be injected with all kinds of assumptions and conjecture to generate a specious conclusion.

Regardless, lets see your science.

Travlyr
03-13-2012, 07:15 AM
It is all right here in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?358241-9-11-was-an-inside-job.&p=4190380&viewfull=1#post4190380). Prior knowledge, eye witness testimony, evidence professionally examined, insider testimony, proof determined by the scientific method of proof.

Nathan Hale
03-13-2012, 07:43 AM
It is all right here in this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?358241-9-11-was-an-inside-job.&p=4190380&viewfull=1#post4190380). Prior knowledge, eye witness testimony, evidence professionally examined, insider testimony, proof determined by the scientific method of proof.

Perhaps the post this link goes to contains some science, but if its there it's buried in three feature-length movies. Sorry, I'm not up for 5 hours of videos right now.

Travlyr
03-13-2012, 07:49 AM
Perhaps the post this link goes to contains some science, but if its there it's buried in three feature-length movies. Sorry, I'm not up for 5 hours of videos right now.

Yeah, that fine. If you ever want to know the truth, then you know where to find it. Tucker Carlson knows the truth and so does Brian Williams.

Nathan Hale
03-13-2012, 08:01 AM
Yeah, that fine. If you ever want to know the truth, then you know where to find it. Tucker Carlson knows the truth and so does Brian Williams.

That's the thing - I don't trust your assertion enough to watch five hours of video that supposedly make the case so regardless of your claim that its the truth, I don't intend to watch it. A large percentage of people both on these forums and (especially) among Paul's support base at-large simply don't believe in trutherism. I used to, back in 03, 04, I was all over forums talking about it, but as I drilled down I realized that more and more of it was "expert" testimony and less and less of it was actual science. It's the same thing with the global warming crowd - they can trot out an army of scientists to get their back, but those scientists get their back with opinion, not actual science. I think Tucker makes a valid point in the video - your theory requires a coverup not just by the government but by the entire media apparatus, which means that it requires believing not just in some thermite charges, but an entire NWO conspiracy to control America.

Travlyr
03-13-2012, 09:13 AM
That's the thing - I don't trust your assertion enough to watch five hours of video that supposedly make the case so regardless of your claim that its the truth, I don't intend to watch it. A large percentage of people both on these forums and (especially) among Paul's support base at-large simply don't believe in trutherism. I used to, back in 03, 04, I was all over forums talking about it, but as I drilled down I realized that more and more of it was "expert" testimony and less and less of it was actual science. It's the same thing with the global warming crowd - they can trot out an army of scientists to get their back, but those scientists get their back with opinion, not actual science. I think Tucker makes a valid point in the video - your theory requires a coverup not just by the government but by the entire media apparatus, which means that it requires believing not just in some thermite charges, but an entire NWO conspiracy to control America.
And this is a real problem in America. Too few do their homework or want to do their own research. The NWO conspiracy was started when Former President Bush told us about it. It was reaffirmed the other day when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told us that America's military get their marching orders from the international community. The international government have websites (http://www.epa.gov/international/index.html) proving their existence. Brian Williams demonstrates prior knowledge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ERhoNYj9_fg#!) of WTC Building 7 coming down. MSM consistently demonstrates cover-ups and black-outs of important information. Experts analyze and conclude that the dust samples taken from the surrounding area contain high levels of explosive material. 9/11 commissioners claim that the 9/11 commission report was not accurate. NIST admits that their investigation was not conclusive. Yet somehow people believe the official story even though the officials don't believe it. Tucker lies through his teeth and people think he makes a valid point. The truth is really not all that scary. The liars are.

Nathan Hale
03-13-2012, 08:13 PM
And this is a real problem in America. Too few do their homework or want to do their own research. The NWO conspiracy was started when Former President Bush told us about it. It was reaffirmed the other day when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told us that America's military get their marching orders from the international community. The international government have websites (http://www.epa.gov/international/index.html) proving their existence. Brian Williams demonstrates prior knowledge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ERhoNYj9_fg#!) of WTC Building 7 coming down. MSM consistently demonstrates cover-ups and black-outs of important information. Experts analyze and conclude that the dust samples taken from the surrounding area contain high levels of explosive material. 9/11 commissioners claim that the 9/11 commission report was not accurate. NIST admits that their investigation was not conclusive. Yet somehow people believe the official story even though the officials don't believe it. Tucker lies through his teeth and people think he makes a valid point. The truth is really not all that scary. The liars are.

Travlyr - I sympathize. I really do. I used to think the way you do. Is there some sinister conspiracy directing the global machines? Perhaps. But perhaps not. At this point I admit that I lack sufficient information. Back in 2003 and 2004 I was a gung ho Truther. I saw the reality behind the deception. And then I realized something. The reality was imagined. Yeah, there was a chance I was right, but at the core of my theories were big leaps of faith, imagined ties that bound together otherwise unrelated data points. I believed the connection, I guess a little bit because it was sexy. It was larger than life. A reason to mentally remove myself from the banality of the daily grind. But at the end of the day my data points weren't connected by empirical proofs, they were connected by my imagination. How much meaning are you adding to each of the bits of data that you perceive? How much assumption are you laying on the table? Perhaps this stuff is for real - perhaps it isn't. My point these days is that those who believe in it find the necessary connections so that imagination doesn't have to fill in the blanks. Because imagination, while it can predict something that isn't easily seen, can also create something that isn't really there.

So perhaps Tucker is filled with some evil vitriol. But I won't fault him for denying something that most people in this very movement don't consider reality. Truthers need to be big tent enough to accept that the liberty movement does not hinge on 9/11 Truth. After all, we're on the same side here - to limit and fight against oppressive government. We just may not have the same motivations for doing so (and that's okay).

anaconda
03-13-2012, 09:16 PM
Because it's not necessarily true that the legions of Paul supporters will withhold their vote from the GOP nominee. Just saying that "the GOP needs Paul because otherwise Paul supporters won't vote GOP" isn't a strong enough statement and invites picking apart the intentions of the many little groups that compromise Paul's support base, that's why Tucker inserted a placeholder to redirect Paul supporters so he could make the point quick and keep focus on the question of the GOP showing Paul some love.

Fair enough.

anaconda
03-13-2012, 09:23 PM
At 4:20. Airplanes did cause fires, but those fires did not bring the buildings down. The buildings were brought down by explosive controlled demolition techniques. That is a proven fact.

Pretty hard to deny when one sees squibs blasting out sideways many floors below the collapse wave, documented explosions in the subbasements, concrete turned to dust, and near free fall acceleration. Perhaps not 100% "proof," but to deny it as a very real possibility would seem highly irrational to me. And for an unbiased observer to not be completely incredulous that the ruins were not examined for signs of this.

anaconda
03-13-2012, 09:40 PM
Travlyr - I sympathize. I really do. I used to think the way you do. Is there some sinister conspiracy directing the global machines? Perhaps. But perhaps not. At this point I admit that I lack sufficient information. Back in 2003 and 2004 I was a gung ho Truther. I saw the reality behind the deception. And then I realized something. The reality was imagined. Yeah, there was a chance I was right, but at the core of my theories were big leaps of faith, imagined ties that bound together otherwise unrelated data points. I believed the connection, I guess a little bit because it was sexy. It was larger than life. A reason to mentally remove myself from the banality of the daily grind. But at the end of the day my data points weren't connected by empirical proofs, they were connected by my imagination. How much meaning are you adding to each of the bits of data that you perceive? How much assumption are you laying on the table? Perhaps this stuff is for real - perhaps it isn't. My point these days is that those who believe in it find the necessary connections so that imagination doesn't have to fill in the blanks. Because imagination, while it can predict something that isn't easily seen, can also create something that isn't really there.

So perhaps Tucker is filled with some evil vitriol. But I won't fault him for denying something that most people in this very movement don't consider reality. Truthers need to be big tent enough to accept that the liberty movement does not hinge on 9/11 Truth. After all, we're on the same side here - to limit and fight against oppressive government. We just may not have the same motivations for doing so (and that's okay).

Your post is balanced, mature, and insightful. But I would like to make one comment. You mentioned that your "core realities" involved "big leaps of faith." But it has been my observation that the majority of "truthers" are very careful to avoid professing particular concise explanations, but instead focus on the very poor credibility of the "official story." I don't think it requires big leaps of faith to be utterly skeptical of explanations offered by the federal government. Especially in this situation. The official story simply does not hold up. So it is very rational and, I would argue, in our best interests, to be completely skeptical of the "official story" in lieu of any decent evidence to support the official story or a meaningful investigation. Skepticism in lieu of transparency is essential and rational.

Nathan Hale
03-14-2012, 08:37 PM
Your post is balanced, mature, and insightful. But I would like to make one comment. You mentioned that your "core realities" involved "big leaps of faith." But it has been my observation that the majority of "truthers" are very careful to avoid professing particular concise explanations, but instead focus on the very poor credibility of the "official story." I don't think it requires big leaps of faith to be utterly skeptical of explanations offered by the federal government. Especially in this situation. The official story simply does not hold up. So it is very rational and, I would argue, in our best interests, to be completely skeptical of the "official story" in lieu of any decent evidence to support the official story or a meaningful investigation. Skepticism in lieu of transparency is essential and rational.

Hey, I'm with you on that. I describe it in religious terms - when it comes to 9/11, I'm agnostic. I just don't know. But I also acknowledge that perhaps finding the answer to 9/11 isn't my most important priority. To wit, if most of the population are willing to accept the official story, then perhaps its not worth pursuing the 9/11 truth and discrediting myself when I could instead forward my agenda of non-intervention overseas and civil liberties here at home without addressing 9/11. Some time in the future, we might be in a position to investigate further, but for now lets focus on putting ourselves in a position to ask these questions without having to think about people on the street handing us tin foil hats for our thoughts.