Ron Paul Super PAC headed by a 9-11 truther

What he said is clear, and it is not what Rudy framed it as.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I watched the video and he did not say what you are saying he said. He said that our foreign policy brought about blowback (9/11), and it is true. At no point did he say we deserve 9/11.

 

Well we can agree to diagree

and you can disagree with Rudy

and you can disagree with the crowd that was there

and you can disagree with the voters

 

Unless you can show where Paul said we deserved 911 its not his words its yours and that is plagiarism

 

why should I agree to disagree. I only do that with one person and that's because she's my friends sister and I'd rather talk about something other than politics.

Rudy is wrong. He is mischaracterising what Ron Paul said. It's very clear, watch the video again. Certainly I can see how someone would get that impression, however Paul is quiet clear that 9/11 was a result of policy, and at no point said or asserted that it was something we deserved.

The crowd doesn't matter.

The voters, clearly they are not voting for Paul. That doesn't make what he said incorrect nor does it mean he said we deserve 9/11.

 

In America everyone has the right to be dense

But you are abusing the privilege

 

Paul stepped in ti and repeated it. Yoiu like toehrs can ignore what he said, even try and defend it - but it does not change the fact he is getting what he deserves

Not taken seriously as a viable candidate for CIC

He could however be Obama's Sec of State or Defense. His insane foreign policy would fit in fine with the kook left

 

What? I'm not sure what you are saying here. As for his foreign policy I'd say it comes from reason as well as the old school American value of non-intervention.

 

It comes from the land of Oz

Taking all of our troops from everywhere in the world and bringing them home will NOT make us stronger

Just a sitting duck

The man is a loon to say the least

 

How will it make us a sitting duck? Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to attack the US? I'm going to bed, but with any luck I'll find your response tomorrow.

 

Hard?

All it took was 13 guys with boxcutters to murder 3,000 people. With the open borders we have now (thanks to libs) it will not be that hard for them again

 

Any reasonable person would interpret that what Paul said was akin to him inferring that we provoked the 911 attacks.

 

Again, who the hell said these people were reasonable?

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: NO NEED TO BYPASS THE FILTER >>>

 

Old school American value? Need I remind you of all of the instances of foreign intervention beginning with Thomas Jefferson in 1801. Foreign intervention has been an American tradition since our founding.

 

Meanwhile you keep making (*)(*)(*)(*) up and spamming it repeatedly hoping someone will actually believe you.

 

And having bases around the world stopped 911?

Republicans support the open borders to you know its bi-partisan.

 

No where in that video does Ron Paul say that we deserved 9/11. You're just making (*)(*)(*)(*) up.

Paul explaining the reasons why the enemy attacked us is not the equivalent of saying that we deserved to be attacked. You have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda.

 

I guess that means he can't he can't come up with supporting evidence.

 

Any REASONABLE person would think that is exactly what he meant.

 

Another Paulbot who refuses to admit the truth about the old man and his insane foreign policy

Thank God a huge majority ov voters do get it and are rejecting him

 

wow... I am amazed...

THIS right here is big part of the reason why our country is going to (*)(*)(*)(*) imo. So quick to twist words and the people of our country don't even LISTEN to what is said, they blindly believe the (*)(*)(*)(*) REPORTER rather than what is actually said by the candidates themselves.

We're talking about the opinion of Wendell Goler here, listed by FOX News Channel themselves as a "personality" and HE is the one who suggested that Ron Paul was saying America deserved 9/11...

Well since FOX News is off the "biased" list, we can totally pull this one out: Goler went to lengths to suggest that Obama is inarticulate without a teleprompter. -http://www.newshounds.us/2009/02/25/fox_news_wendell_goler_suggests_that_bush_a_better_speaker_than_obama.php

Since this Goler guy knows, I figure we can argue that Obama can only tell us what he is told what to say by his teleprompter.


Ooo here's a great one, "The story Fox News ran was attributed to their own Wendell Goler and the Associated Press. Goler lifted most of the details from the AP, including the Obamas&#8217; bike rides and stops for ice cream. However, he neglected to include the information on Bush&#8217;s vacations, which was in the AP&#8217;s article. That&#8217;s a pretty egregious failure to provide relevant context for a column whose title was so deliberately biased.

This omission cannot be explained away as an editorial decision to focus on Obama and leave former presidents out of it, because Goler did include Bush in the article by way of interviewing his former deputy press secretary, Scott Stanzel. Stanzel&#8217;s contribution to the story was to criticize Obama for taking his vacation in Maine rather than in Gulf Coast (where Obama has already been at least four times). Stanzel further defended Bush&#8217;s many excursions to Crawford, Texas, as being appropriate because he still got work done there. Although there was no similar defense of Obama who, like all presidents, is working 24/7.

Goler also went out of his way to lie about one occasion when Bush was vacationing in Crawford and a hurricane happened to nearly destroy New Orleans. Goler said that Bush cut his vacation short, but the truth is that he extended it to play guitar with a country singer and to visit John McCain in Phoenix to celebrate his birthday.

You don&#8217;t get many better examples of deliberate bias than this. Goler based his reporting on an article from the AP that was actually pretty fair and balanced. But for Fox News it had to be altered to eliminate any context that might reflect favorably on Obama, while adding fiction that whitewashed Bush&#8217;s failures.

More proof that Fox News is the enemy of fairness and the defiler of balance." - http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?tag=wendell-goler


Obviously Obama is totally wasting our tax money on frivilous vacations!! Mr. Groler SAID!! (pfft just ignore the part where it says Goler was baised and lied, after all we've decided he's totally "in the know")



Mmmhmm, so lets try this, Here is a link to the transcript of that debate: http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/republican-debate-transcript-south-carolina/p13338

MR. GOLER: Congressman Paul, I believe you are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq, who would bring the troops home as quickly as -- almost immediately, sir. Are you out of step with your party? Is your party out of step with the rest of the world? If either of those is the case, why are you seeking its nomination?

REP. PAUL: Well, I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy.

Senator Robert Taft didn't even want to be in NATO. George Bush won the election in the year 2000 campaigning on a humble foreign policy -- no nation-building, no policing of the world. Republicans were elected to end the Korean War. The Republicans were elected to end the Vietnam War. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them.
Just think of the tremendous improvement -- relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution.

And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. (Bell rings.) When we do, the wars don't end.

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

(Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th.

(Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

---

And for the record: No, I did not support Ron Paul back then, and I am not a supporter this time around either...

 

Some people on here have a hard time grasping the truth. They would rather live in make believe land.

 

It is clear the Paulbots have no interest in the facts

Paul did blame Amecia for 9/11

Paul said America deserved 9/11

A 9/11 truther is running his Super Pac

Paul put out racist newsletters years ago

and this weekend Paul is speaking to a white supremacist group

But anyone dares to mention this about their guy - the Paulbots tag this as "hate"

The sooner Paul drops out the better

 

It's clear you are a troll. I have proved you wrong 3+ times with facts and you are desperate and grasping at anything. You seemed pretty obsessed with commenting on every Paul thread. Seems to me like you are more the "Paulobot" than anyone...

/awaiting your reply in some form of stupid picture since you cannot mount a credible defense of any of your positions...

 

The only thing you have proven is you could not care less about the truth of what the old man said

You like the Obama drones, can't respond to the the truth of your guys actions - so you duck, dodge, hide, and attack

Deal with the fact boy your guy is going nowhere expect back home and it can't happen soon enough

So I welcome your hate when he gives up since you will never blame him for his defeat at the polls