A quote from Ron Paul that some forum members need to stop straying from...

[therepublic]

Even though some supporters are 9/11 Truthers, Ron Paul is not:

YouTube - Ron Paul on 9/11 Truthers

[jmdrake]

Even though some supporters are 9/11 Truthers, Ron Paul is not:

YouTube - Ron Paul on 9/11 Truthers

Ah the famous clip where Ron Paul denies himself. I say "denies himself" because he said the questioner specifically asked if he had abandoned the idea that the government "covered it up". Ron Paul had said on multiple occasions that the 9/11 commission report was a "cover up". And yes, I know, he was talking about a "cover up of incompetence". Post this video (and post the election) there was the video where someone asked why didn't Ron Paul come out about the "truth" of 9/11, and Ron Paul said "It's too controversial". Again I assume he was talking about the "truth about a cover up".

Anyway, Ron Paul has supporters who support / are against gay marriage, support / are against abortion, support / are against continuing the war in Afghanistan etc. 9/11 should not be singled out.

[therepublic]

Even though some supporters are 9/11 Truthers, Ron Paul is not:

YouTube - Ron Paul on 9/11 Truthers

When asked if he would ask his supporters to abandon the 9/11 truthers position, Ron says, If they care about me they should. I do not endorse what they say, and I don not agree.

Now one could argue that they read something different between the lines, but I have to go by the evidence. And so far Ron's voting record demonstrates his honesty.

[jmdrake]

When asked if he would ask his supporters to abandon the 9/11 truthers position, Ron says, If they care about me they should. I do not endorse what they say, and I don not agree.

Now one could argue that they read something different between the lines, but I have to go by the evidence. And so far Ron's voting record demonstrates his honesty.

Again you have snipped out a large part of the quote. The part where the questioner said "or covered it up". And it's not Ron Paul's honesty I question. It's sad to see people still using this clip and still taking it out of context after the election is over. Have you seen the other clip where Ron was asked why didn't he come out with the truth about 9/11 and he said "because it's too controversial for me"? The clip I'm referring to is after this one. I've seen people try to explain that one away as "Ron getting ambushed". Well why can't people see that this was an ambush question?

Anyway, it's irrelevant. Like I said. Some Ron Paul supporters support gay marriage and some are against it also. We don't have to agree on everything.

[therepublic]

Again you have snipped out a large part of the quote. The part where the questioner said "or covered it up". And it's not Ron Paul's honesty I question. It's sad to see people still using this clip and still taking it out of context after the election is over. Have you seen the other clip where Ron was asked why didn't he come out with the truth about 9/11 and he said "because it's too controversial for me"? The clip I'm referring to is after this one. I've seen people try to explain that one away as "Ron getting ambushed". Well why can't people see that this was an ambush question?

Anyway, it's irrelevant. Like I said. Some Ron Paul supporters support gay marriage and some are against it also. We don't have to agree on everything.

No I have not seen that video. Please post it. And yes as libertarians we respect differences of opinion. However it is not us we are trying to get re-elected, so we should listen to what he says, "if they care about me they would". I think he respects differences of opinion, but we should be clear about what Ron Paul believes, and where we differ. Too often people twist his words for various reasons. Lets trust what he says.

[jmdrake]

No I have not seen that video. Please post it. And yes as libertarians we respect differences of opinion. However it is not us we are trying to get re-elected, so we should listen to what he says, "if they care about me they would". I think he respects differences of opinion, but we should be clear about what Ron Paul believes, and where we differ. Too often people twist his words for various reasons. Lets trust what he says.

I won't post it here because it ticks people off. Just go to YouTube and search

ron paul imf 9/11

It's the first one that comes up. Also Ron Paul will have absolutely no problem getting re-elected. And if his campaign for congress could get derailed by some post on a forum then it wasn't real to begin with. The questions about Ron Paul and 9/11 didn't come up because of "truthers" making forum posts or waving signs. It came up because of comments Ron Paul made on the Alex Jones show. He's in complete control of the amount of "truther exposure" he has. He pushes the envelop with statements about "Gulf of Tonkin style contrived events that might get us into a war with Iran" and I think that's great. But people need to recognize that this is were his "truther problem" originated.

[tremendoustie]

A blank stare followed by a resounding "So what"? People are impatient. And people are prideful. Most people do not want to admit that our policy did anything to cause this any more then they would want to admit that our government might have willfully allowed or instigated 9/11.

I find that most people are more willing to listen to the former argument than the latter.

And even if/when you get people past that threshold, their next question is "So what do you want me to do about it now? The Ayyyyrabs are already mad anyway. They aren't going to stop all of a sudden just because we decide to play nice. Besides, look at Ghadafi declaring jihad against the Swiss."

I would say,

"I would stop making the problem worse. We are creating three new terrorists for every one we kill, ten new enemies for every innocent person we murder, and hundreds for every month we spend occuping another country. We can't afford our foreign policy anyway, even if it were moral. We have over 700 bases in 140 countries -- it's beyond insane. Bring the troops home, and if anyone attempts to attack us, bring them and those who supported them to justice -- don't attempt to take over an entire country and rebuild its infrastructure and political system. Our policies are Osama's best friend. We are driving people to him in droves."


They could use the objection you cite even if you somehow convinced them to entertain the notion that 9/11 was not committed by terrorists. The reality is, though, as soon as you mention 9/11 truth, odds are they're going to say, "you're a nutter", and will shut their ears. You won't even get to make the argument above.

Heck, people I debate with online often try to pigeon hole me as a "9/11 truther", just so they can discount my arguments in their own mind and in the minds of others.

[jmdrake]

I find that most people are more willing to listen to the former argument than the latter.

That's nice. I've found the opposite to be true.

I would say,

"I would stop making the problem worse. We are creating three new terrorists for every one we kill, ten new enemies for every innocent person we murder, and hundreds for every month we spend occuping another country. We can't afford our foreign policy anyway, even if it were moral. We have over 700 bases in 140 countries -- it's beyond insane. Bring the troops home, and if anyone attempts to attack us, bring them and those who supported them to justice -- don't attempt to take over an entire country and rebuild its infrastructure and political system. Our policies are Osama's best friend. We are driving people to him in droves."


They could use the objection you cite even if you somehow convinced them to entertain the notion that 9/11 was not committed by terrorists. The reality is, though, as soon as you mention 9/11 truth, odds are they're going to say, "you're a nutter", and will shut their ears. You won't even get to make the argument above.

I've never met anyone who came to the realization that they were lied to about 9/11 yet continued to insist that we should be invading places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I have met plenty who by the blowback argument but still go for an aggressive "Let's bomb Iran's suspected nuclear program" mentality. (*cough Peter Schiff cough*)

Further the way to talk to someone about 9/11 truth is not to shout "9/11 was an inside job" to them. It's to bring up things that they can't explain through the official story. Like why has the U.S. government never sought the extradition of the man whom the FBI verified funded 9/11. Anyone with half a brain won't dismiss you as a "nutter" if you say that. And if they do, they are a lost cause anyway.

[tremendoustie]

That's nice. I've found the opposite to be true.

Wow -- really? This is almost unbelievable to me. You seriously have an easier time convincing random people that 9/11 was intentionally instigated by the government, than convincing them that terrorists are to a large degree motivated by our interventionist and abusive foreign policies?

As I say, that's the absolute opposite of what I've seen, but I'm not going to say you're lying. Perhaps your arguments for the former are more finely honed, while your presentation of the latter point is abraisive -- or perhaps it has something to do with the circles you run in.

I've never met anyone who came to the realization that they were lied to about 9/11 yet continued to insist that we should be invading places like Iraq and Afghanistan. I have met plenty who by the blowback argument but still go for an aggressive "Let's bomb Iran's suspected nuclear program" mentality. (*cough Peter Schiff cough*)

I find the "yes but" folks don't really accept the blowback argument either. They just sidestep it.

Further the way to talk to someone about 9/11 truth is not to shout "9/11 was an inside job" to them. It's to bring up things that they can't explain through the official story. Like why has the U.S. government never sought the extradition of the man whom the FBI verified funded 9/11. Anyone with half a brain won't dismiss you as a "nutter" if you say that. And if they do, they are a lost cause anyway.

You seem to have some good methods, and if you're as sucessful as you claim, more power to ya. I'd rather live among a bunch of "truthers" than a bunch of warmongers, that's for sure.

[kahless]

The OP really should change that bullshit title and bold text.