PDA

View Full Version : FOX Asks Paul to Reject TRUTH....




VoluntaryMan
01-11-2008, 11:45 AM
9/11 TRUTH

Next time some pissant asks if he endorses his supporters views about the official stories offered to them by their gov't, he should say this:

While I don't share their particular cynicism on this particular issue, I understand the cause of that cynicism: as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, "All men, having power, ought to be mistrusted." History is overflowing with examples of official corruption, of evil men in high places. The public is right to be skeptical of information coming from their gov't, even if not all of their suspicions are correct. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, this nation's charter, reminds us that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Skepticism is a healthy thing.

When the people become complacent, and too trusting of their public officials, tyranny will come to America. In fact, to a degree, it has already begun. After 9/11, one of my opponents' lucky number, the American people were encouraged to exchange their civil liberties for the promise of security, a fool's bargain; as Dr. Benjamin Franklin once instructed, "those who would trade essential liberty for the promise of security deserve and will receive neither." I'm a doctor, and I know the limits of science and human biology, and there is no one, not even in gov't, that can deliver on a promise of eternal life, health, and physical safety. It's a lie; the people are being sold a magic elixir, snake oil, by slick salesmen who seek nothing more than power, position, privilege, and prestige for themselves. Don't buy it, America! Don't imbibe their poison! Spit it out!

So, back to your question, what are you asking me exactly? Are you asking me to endorse the ideas of those who might vote for me? I couldn't possibly even know all of their ideas, and it isn't my job to judge and endorse them. My job is to present a platform, to spread a message, and if the voters like what I have to say, and if they approve of my record, then they will endorse me with their votes. Do you want me to reject their votes? Each election cycle, we encourage 100% participation, so presumably, ideally, everyone will vote for someone. Who do you propose I tell them to vote for, assuming I had that power and influence? Which of my opponents would you prefer they support? ...and if they do decide to support one of my opponents instead, will you then ask him that same ridiculous question?

Deborah K
01-11-2008, 11:47 AM
Wow! You're good! Maybe you should be his speechwriter.

yongrel
01-11-2008, 11:47 AM
his answer was great. leave it alone.

freelance
01-11-2008, 11:49 AM
That's rich! I'd love to see him use this.

smoke.stack
01-11-2008, 01:19 PM
nice

PatriotG
01-11-2008, 01:41 PM
Dude!

That Speech Rocks!
RP Campaign, you should save this one for future use!

PatriotG

disciple
01-11-2008, 01:45 PM
Good stuff.

JMann
01-11-2008, 01:50 PM
Paragraph 3 is all that needs to be said the rest is wordy and nonessential to the question.

VoluntaryMan
01-11-2008, 01:56 PM
Paragraph 3 is all that needs to be said the rest is wordy and nonessential to the question.

It goes to the underlying point of the necessary skepticism toward those in power. It explains why he can support their skepticism, without endorsing their conclusions. The point is that every counter to an attack should be aimed at expanding support, instead of narrowly focusing on reducing defection. If he gets in the habit of turning attacks to his advantage, the attacks will end.

jmdrake
01-11-2008, 01:57 PM
his answer was great. leave it alone.

You don't win elections by trying to push away your base while at the same time playing to them. Ron Paul loses a credibility point every time he's forced to "deny" the 9/11 movement, but then goes back on the Alex Jones show. (I know. Some of you don't want him on their either. But you don't complain about truther money.) Really Ron Paul handled this question better in earlier interviews. I don't know who's advising him on this, but they aren't helping.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Carole
01-11-2008, 01:59 PM
Excellent! :)

dannno
01-11-2008, 02:05 PM
I think the answer he gave last night was great, and I think the answer above is great.

I love that he mentioned 3 false flag operations right after. Some people need to wake up or else they won't "get" his message. Maybe a few people will google the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Maybe they will put the connection together with 9/11 and the truther stance he discussed and start looking into that as well. They don't need to know that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, they just need to know that something like that can happen, and that our current administration is perpetrating the same type of behavior that has happened in other similar incidents.

Shellshock1918
01-11-2008, 02:08 PM
9/11 TRUTH

Next time some pissant asks if he endorses his supporters views about the official stories offered to them by their gov't, he should say this:

While I don't share their particular cynicism on this particular issue, I understand the cause of that cynicism: as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said, "All men, having power, ought to be mistrusted." History is overflowing with examples of official corruption, of evil men in high places. The public is right to be skeptical of information coming from their gov't, even if not all of their suspicions are correct. Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence, this nation's charter, reminds us that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Skepticism is a healthy thing.

When the people become complacent, and too trusting of their public officials, tyranny will come to America. In fact, to a degree, it has already begun. After 9/11, one of my opponents' lucky number, the American people were encouraged to exchange their civil liberties for the promise of security, a fool's bargain; as Dr. Benjamin Franklin once instructed, "those who would trade essential liberty for the promise of security deserve and will receive neither." I'm a doctor, and I know the limits of science and human biology, and there is no one, not even in gov't, that can deliver on a promise of eternal life, health, and physical safety. It's a lie; the people are being sold a magic elixir, snake oil, by slick salesmen who seek nothing more than power, position, privilege, and prestige for themselves. Don't buy it, America! Don't imbibe their poison! Spit it out!

So, back to your question, what are you asking me exactly? Are you asking me to endorse the ideas of those who might vote for me? I couldn't possibly even know all of their ideas, and it isn't my job to judge and endorse them. My job is to present a platform, to spread a message, and if the voters like what I have to say, and if they approve of my record, then they will endorse me with their votes. Do you want me to reject their votes? Each election cycle, we encourage 100% participation, so presumably, ideally, everyone will vote for someone. Who do you propose I tell them to vote for, assuming I had that power and influence? Which of my opponents would you prefer they support? ...and if they do decide to support one of my opponents instead, will you then ask him that same ridiculous question?

Sorry but it's perceived truth. I personally don't buy into it but I can understand why people would question it.

Ira Aten
01-11-2008, 02:11 PM
I would suggest that Dr. Paul should have added, (in response to Fox's Pencil Necked Fellatio Expert) that Fox News might want to try his (Dr. Paul's) philosophy, and that is to make his statements, and then....instead of trying to dictate what the viewer should thnk...LET THEM DECIDE!

A whole new concept for Fox to try....They could make it their slogan...
FOX NEWS....We report-You Decide!

giarcc6269
01-11-2008, 02:13 PM
Excellent!!!

VoluntaryMan
01-11-2008, 02:13 PM
Sorry but it's perceived truth. I personally don't buy into it but I can understand why people would question it.

I don't even think it's necessarilly the perception of truth, but the pursuit of truth. The establishment is asking Paul to repudiate the right of the people to doubt what they are told. When a "news" organization advances this position, we live in a very dangerous world.

VoluntaryMan
01-11-2008, 02:15 PM
I would suggest that Dr. Paul should have added, (in response to Fox's Pencil Necked Fellatio Expert) that Fox News might want to try his (Dr. Paul's) philosophy, and that is to make his statements, and then....instead of trying to dictate what the viewer should thnk...LET THEM DECIDE!

A whole new concept for Fox to try....They could make it their slogan...
FOX NEWS....We report-You Decide!:D:D:D

enjerth
01-11-2008, 02:29 PM
I wish Paul would have answered, suggesting that he doesn't believe in 9/11 truth and never has, since he was for the military strike in Afghanistan to take out Al-Qaeda and the Talliban.

It would be good for him to take the opportunity to show that, not only is he not a 9/11 truther, but that he's not exactly WEAK on the war on terror. He just knows that Iraq was NOT a part of the war on terror.

For you 9/11 truthers, how could you say Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther since he DID vote in favor of retaliation strikes on Al-Qaeda and the Talliban? If he believed that 9/11 was an inside job, how could he favor striking a foreign country? Wouldn't that be uncharacteristic of Ron Paul?

jmdrake
01-11-2008, 02:35 PM
I wish Paul would have answered, suggesting that he doesn't believe in 9/11 truth and never has, since he was for the military strike in Afghanistan to take out Al-Qaeda and the Talliban.

It would be good for him to take the opportunity to show that, not only is he not a 9/11 truther, but that he's not exactly WEAK on the war on terror. He just knows that Iraq was NOT a part of the war on terror.

For you 9/11 truthers, how could you say Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther since he DID vote in favor of retaliation strikes on Al-Qaeda and the Talliban? If he believed that 9/11 was an inside job, how could he favor striking a foreign country? Wouldn't that be uncharacteristic of Ron Paul?

A) He came out later and said he regretted that vote.

B) 9/11 truth does not discount the possibility of Al Qaeda involvement. In fact one of the mainstays of 9/11 truth is that Osama Bin Laden as his bunch of CIA funded thugs (proven fact) were crucial to pulling off 9/11 by creating a false rabbit hole to go after. When you get a chance read Peter Bergen's book "Holy War Inc". Peter Bergen is a CNN correspondent and the last western journalist to interview OBL. In his book he details how CIA money flowed through Pakistan to the most anti western fighters the Pakistani ISI could find. Bergen is NOT a 9/11 truther by the way.

Regards,

John M. Drake

RWill
01-11-2008, 02:39 PM
Wow! You're good! Maybe you should be his speechwriter.

You have my vote. RP HQ could use someone like you.

enjerth
01-11-2008, 02:40 PM
A) He came out later and said he regretted that vote.

B) 9/11 truth does not discount the possibility of Al Qaeda involvement. In fact one of the mainstays of 9/11 truth is that Osama Bin Laden as his bunch of CIA funded thugs (proven fact) were crucial to pulling off 9/11 by creating a false rabbit hole to go after. When you get a chance read Peter Bergen's book "Holy War Inc". Peter Bergen is a CNN correspondent and the last western journalist to interview OBL. In his book he details how CIA money flowed through Pakistan to the most anti western fighters the Pakistani ISI could find. Bergen is NOT a 9/11 truther by the way.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Yes, I understood he regretted it. But not because he didn't believe it wasn't right in the first place, but because of where it went after that.

VoluntaryMan
01-11-2008, 02:48 PM
I wish Paul would have answered, suggesting that he doesn't believe in 9/11 truth and never has, since he was for the military strike in Afghanistan to take out Al-Qaeda and the Talliban.

It would be good for him to take the opportunity to show that, not only is he not a 9/11 truther, but that he's not exactly WEAK on the war on terror. He just knows that Iraq was NOT a part of the war on terror.


Excellent point! This needs to be incorporated into future response: "if I believed our own gov't was behind the attack, why would I have authorized the retaliatory strike against Afganistan?"

VoluntaryMan
01-11-2008, 02:50 PM
You have my vote. RP HQ could use someone like you.

:o

hcbrand
01-11-2008, 03:12 PM
I agree with the position of the 3rd paragraph. The idea that there are citizens of our free society that should not be allowed to participate in the political process because of their views or beliefs is just another example of collectivism and intolerance. When the supremacist donation issue was brought-up a few weeks ago, my reaction was simply, well, you have to assume these guys vote for one candidate or another. And who have they supported in the past? The media's question is hypocritical to the point of the latest over-used and misunderstood term, fascism.

lincolninked@yahoo.com
01-11-2008, 05:48 PM
How many 911ers will be pissed if Ron Paul does not champion their cause?

I think the real truth of what happened there is beyond the mental scope of a 70 year old patriot. What the US did to us is beyond the mental abilities of most people born in his generation. I am afraid only younger people are willing to see that truth. The truth will never come out, not with any president, never.