Ron Paul and 9/11

Thought there may be some interest in this news article:

openchannel.msnbc.msn.com...

Apparently a Super PAC that is supporting the Ron Paul campaign is operated by a conspiracy afficianado. The operator apparently doesn't limit his paranoia to only "inside job" fanatasies but also likes the "FEMA concentration camps" stuff.

You're on a website dedicated to conspiracies while suggesting that there is something wrong with believing in conspiracy theories...

Hey ATS-ers, if you believe in a conspiracy theory, youre now "paranoid" and believe in "fantasies".

WOW.

reply to post by hooper


I'm not surprised in the slightest. Ron Paul has been pandering to the paranoid set for decades. There is a big overlap between the "right" libertarian movement and beilief in conspiracy theories and also the neo-confederate/aryan groups.

This is how Ron Paul has been able to assemble his political movement; by collecting the unreserved support of every right wing fringe group, and keeping his message vague enough to keep some college kids.

I hope these people don't hurt anyone. With such cynical people as their leaders, though, sometimes I think it's only a matter of time.

reply to post by gladtobehere


If you don't like this thread, there are lots of others. That's what's great about ATS.

The site is for discussion and debate and exchange of information, not yea-saying.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer


Care to address the point I was making?

reply to post by gladtobehere


Only to say that nobody has an obligation to support any particular view about conspiracy theories in order to post or create threads. Skeptics and Debunkers are allowed to be here and post their views on conspiracy theories.

If you want a message board for 'believers only', I'm sure there's one out there for you.

Anyway, we're both off topic, so I won't be saying any more about it.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

I wasnt off topic, you were. I was addressing the absurdity of criticizing conspiracies on a website dedicated to conspiracy theories.

Then you attacked me.

Ron Paul is not a 9/11 truther and that makes me mad. I say this regardless of whether or not it "hurts the movement" because it is the truth. And ron paul supporters (I am one) should thank me because it proves not everyone of his supporters believes every word he says.

On that note, i still support Ron Paul because of the attempts at discrediting by saying he "panders" to the conspiracy movement which he doesnt.

-i support ron paul
-i am a 9/11 truther (not a no planer)
- i know ron paul is not a truther (although his views are antiestablishment.)

Conclusion: when someone says ron paul is a conspiracy theorist i know it is a lie and support him more because he is persecuted (for something he doesnt believe).

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

I wasnt off topic, you were. I was addressing the absurdity of criticizing conspiracies on a website dedicated to conspiracy theories.
Then you attacked me.

edit on 9-2-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)

I thought the theme here was the denial of ignorance. Not the inherent sanctity of all conspiracies.

Besides, where better to critique conspiracy fantasies then on the forum dedicated to discussing them?

Originally posted by hooper
Thought there may be some interest in this news article:

openchannel.msnbc.msn.com...

Apparently a Super PAC that is supporting the Ron Paul campaign is operated by a conspiracy afficianado. The operator apparently doesn't limit his paranoia to only "inside job" fanatasies but also likes the "FEMA concentration camps" stuff.

Hmmm...a super-PAC being run by a 9/11 truther. If he has that kind of money then doesn't that make him a one percenter?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by hooper
Thought there may be some interest in this news article:

openchannel.msnbc.msn.com...

Apparently a Super PAC that is supporting the Ron Paul campaign is operated by a conspiracy afficianado. The operator apparently doesn't limit his paranoia to only "inside job" fanatasies but also likes the "FEMA concentration camps" stuff.

Hmmm...a super-PAC being run by a 9/11 truther. If he has that kind of money then doesn't that make him a one percenter?

Maybe. Just thought it was interesting. First time "9/11 truth movement" has made the news in years. Of course its in association with a fringe presidential candidate. And I know that Paul is getting anywhere between 2 and 12 percent in some of the primaries and caucases but I still consider him and his adherents fringe.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


What has thar to do with anything? You do not like rich people?

It appeared to me that Ron Paul used 9/11 conspiracies to pick up alternative support for his campaign, he was all up for looking into it but now he doesn't have time for it.

I read the article and it's complete crap. Smear tactics is what it is, trying to portray Ron Paul as being socially unacceptable in one way or another because of one of his supporters personal views. Doubt they'd run a story about Mitt Romney's supporters, the Goldman Sacchs morons who played a role in the financial crisis in 08, who's CEO's and employees hired prostitutes and did other things like that. So, the bias in that article is painfully obvious. Again, lets see them run an article on Romney. good luck.

Originally posted by Insolubrious
It appeared to me that Ron Paul used 9/11 conspiracies to pick up alternative support for his campaign, he was all up for looking into it but now he doesn't have time for it.

If you are going to slander someone , the proper procedure is to take what that person says outta context, or , do a Fox News trick of editing in other speeches and or pics and video.

What Ron Paul said about 911 was, there were many failures on that day, agencies of the US that failed, and he wanted to investigate that further, instead of the "white wash" we all know happened.

Originally posted by RadioactiveRob
I read the article and it's complete crap. Smear tactics is what it is, trying to portray Ron Paul as being socially unacceptable in one way or another because of one of his supporters personal views. Doubt they'd run a story about Mitt Romney's supporters, the Goldman Sacchs morons who played a role in the financial crisis in 08, who's CEO's and employees hired prostitutes and did other things like that. So, the bias in that article is painfully obvious. Again, lets see them run an article on Romney. good luck.

Excellent points. And all true. And just for the record, Ron Paul said that he would support a new investigation. In fact, he said he would talk to D. Kucinich about it:



He kept dropping hints about a coverup.

Remember? "All evidence linking Israel to 9/11 is classified." Righto. Coverup. RP knows. He's not a hardcore truther, but he's open to a new investigation.

But trying to discredit his campaign because one of his supporters is a truther, is about par for the course. Just consider the source. That's how low they have to go.

I think all people who are not on the He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named bandwagon should look more into his past relationships and his ideas. We need to make sure that He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named is as truthful as he says he is. We need to take a microscope to his record and we need to rip it up like his followers have done to all the other candidates.

Connections like this makes me nervous. I for one, do have questions about the 9/11 event and it's most likely an unorganized mess of classified documents in which they will release at a later time. Just like the JFK event.

This is getting to be sort of like OWS. Just because they are supporting He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named does not mean he is a bad guy? Well, I for one do not want a bunch of paranoid conspiracy theorists running the White House! Yea, Presidents tend to give their supporters and backers high profile positions. He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named has a bunch of questionable viewpoints and connections. Probably part of the reason he doesn't appeal to the majority of the country just on fringe websites like this. Either way, Five weeks from now, we'll see who's still in this race. I'm guessing Gingrich and He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named will drop out after Super Tuesday!

If you are going to give significance to who supports a candidate, and argue that the candidate must be the most likely to support their views, there are much worse things that Ron Paul.

By this logic Ron Paul would support looking into conspiracies. How about we look at Newt's Las Vegas casino owner who Newt said today on Fox News Sunday that he is "desperately scared or an Iranian nuclear bomb". The interview was creepy. That is much scarier than a president who might believe in FEMA camps.

I can't find the video of Newt on Fox News Sunday. There are clips up of the interview, but not the one where he mentions his billionaire buddy.

After all, no president in history has ever been afraid of other government agencies, right?

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

I'm not surprised in the slightest. Ron Paul has been pandering to the paranoid set for decades. There is a big overlap between the "right" libertarian movement and beilief in conspiracy theories and also the neo-confederate/aryan groups. This is how Ron Paul has been able to assemble his political movement; by collecting the unreserved support of every right wing fringe group, and keeping his message vague enough to keep some college kids. I hope these people don't hurt anyone. With such cynical people as their leaders, though, sometimes I think it's only a matter of time.

Well it doesn't seem to be working for him that well.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Hmmm...a super-PAC being run by a 9/11 truther. If he has that kind of money then doesn't that make him a one percenter?

*SIGH* I see the [color=gold]attempt at cleverness in that reply, but it only makes you look [color=gold]very ignorant.

You do realize that its the [color=gold]"one percenters" who screw over the lives of millions of hard-working families whom folks have issues with, right? Just because someone is wealthy doesnt AUTOMATICALLY mean that We The People view them as our enemy. The MAJORITY of [color=gold]"one percenters" would care less to see every family in the world starve to death because of their NEVER-ENDING greed for MORE AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE, and on and on...

Such [color=gold]"one percenters", (whom are the huge majority), are the SNAKES whom folks have an issue with, and RIGHTFULLY so. We The People do NOT view ALL [color=gold]"one percenters" as the enemy of the decent folks of the world. Just the huge MAJORITY of [color=gold]"one percenters".

Get it?