Oh, come on, I thought it was a respectable attempt at Paultard spin.
It was the best I could do at 2 o'clock in the morning on a Friday night.
Posted on 10/05/2007 7:09:48 AM PDT by lormand
Edited on 10/05/2007 8:39:34 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ron Paul will be on the Alex Jones Show Today between 12pm and 3pm EST tune in and listen!!!!!!
http://www.nfowars.net:443/stream1.asx
That's pretty ooky. How about too nutty for George Noory, the replacement?
If OBL ends up with his own sitcom someday, that's it. Losing the war and this could happen.
So, VEGAS decides elections now? The electoral college has been replaced by bookies. LOL LOL LOL
Glenn Beck asks the hard questions. Let’s Play Glennball.
I like the siphoning thing. Let the siphoning begin.
No radio jock is going to survive basing a show on one premise. So, of course he doesn't. But the fact remains; Alex Jones is numero uno when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories. Period. This has been documented time and again. But for one instance of this insanity, let me provide a discussion between RP and a Truther at a party earlier this year (the source is from Michelle Malkin's homesite: Michelle Malkin.
Student: …we’ve heard that you have questioned the government’s official account.
Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.
Student: So I just wanted to say, you know, we’ve talked to Dennis Kucinich and he says that he’s willing to, you know, investigate it. He would advocate for a new investigation.
Paul: Into 9/11?
Student: Yeah, into 9/11. I mean, if it was Dennis Kucinich and you, there’d be congressional support. You know what I mean? So you wouldn’t be the only one.
Paul: It’d be bipartisan, too. And I’ve worked with Dennis a lot on a lot of these issues.
Student: So I mean, would you advocate for a new investigation into 9/11?
Paul: Yes, I think we have to look at the details of it.
Student: Yeah. Yeah, and I know that he is really serious about this because I know that his office is already investigating certain aspects of 9/11 he’s having his guys look into.
Paul: I’ll talk to him about it.
Student: Yeah, that’d be great. Thank you, thank you very much!
Below is another transcript from the same site, with a portion of a caller/Ron Paul discussion on an earlier Alex Jones broadcast:
CALLER: I want a complete, impartial, and totally independent investigation of the events of September 11, 2001 . I’m tired of this bogus garbage about terrorism. Ask Michael Meacher about how he feels about this bogus war on terrorism. Can you comment on that please?
HON. DR. RON PAUL: Well, that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, we don’t have that in place. It will be a little bit better now with the Democrats now in charge of oversight. But you know, for top level policy there’s not a whole lot of difference between the two policies so a real investigation isn’t going to happen. But I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on.
Sorry Travis, but the above is a clear indication that Ron Paul is at least sympathetic to 9/11 conspiracy theorists. He's also outspoken enough to state to a complete stranger that he believes the government covers itself on such investigations. Whether true or not, these are NOT statements a person qualified for the office of president should be making. He doesn't know how/when to shut his mouth.
Furthermore, the caller in the second situation is talking about the 'bogus war on terrorism'. He's NOT upset about the Iraq conflict. He's upset about the ENTIRE war on terror. It's bogus to him. And here's good ol' Ron Paul just agreeing away with him. In fact, here's a man running as a conservative Republican who's happy the Democrats are in charge because he believes it'll be better now with the Democrats in charge of oversight. And he running as a Republican??
You want to know where I draw the line? I draw the line with Ron Paul. Never, ever will I consider a candidate who makes himself available to left-wing socialist Truthers, or anyone of their ilk. NEVER! And not only has Ron Paul done this in the past, HE CONTINUES TO DO IT!!!!! Even as he's disclaiming such relationships. The man is a LIAR. The man is a FRAUD. There is no way I would ever vote for such a sorry person. He's considering himself over his constituency and over our government and over our country.
Oh, BTW, the videos on the Malkin site no longer work. Apparently they've been dropped from the links as set. That's OK. You see, I have the entire video. I downloaded it before it was pulled. You really can't hide anything on the Internet. Ya know?
Both of you, have a great weekend. And Travis, start thinking a little. Do something for yourself. There's a far brighter world out than than Dr. Ron Paul will provide.
Ron Paul DOES understand the Constitution. That’s what we need to get the sheep back to their pasture. BBBAAAHHHH
I wonder what web site I look at anymore.
When I observe and listen to Ron Paul he both annoys and does not inspire me in faith or courage. Not POTUS material IMHO.
Oh, come on, I thought it was a respectable attempt at Paultard spin.
It was the best I could do at 2 o'clock in the morning on a Friday night.
Memo to me: I suppose if it was 2 o’clock it was no longer Friday night.
I call almost all elected representatives public serpents. Unless they prove otherwise, they are guilty until proven innocent.
Glen Beck.
Was Ron Paul invited to speak on Glen Becks’ show? If he was he should show his face and face the music.
Did he refuse to show?
Eric, you THINK you have this phenomenon figured out and put in its political place, so to speak.
I'm just a jackass with a modem. What do I know? In the words of that great poet and philosopher William Joel "You may be wrong, but for all I know, you may be right."
However, he might just be trying to get more famous and make tons of money on the lecture circuit and writing books, and he might just like all the money and adulation and sticking it to the political establishment.
Geez, if that turns out to be the case, than I will be even more disillusioned with politics than I already am.
In real life, the “young leftists” who support him for his blame America let’s get out of everywhere around the world foreign policy will NOT become limited government libertarians because of it.
I just base my impression of the thinking of the young voters on my personal experience and occupation...as a pimp and a drug dealer :-) When I hear them say categorically they won't vote Republican and I ask why, they don't really know exactly but their impression is that Republican = bible thumping theocrats. They think the right is for Big Gubmint and the left is for personal freedom. In other words, they got it ass backwards. Most of them are really libertarians/"South Park Conservatives" but don't know it yet.
Interestingly, the idea that free markets (ie a political futures market) would be a better predictor than polls is not far fetched and has been studied. In a poll there are no ramifications to the pollster, the polling company or the general public as to whether they are right or wrong. If somebody has money on it, however, they have an incentive to be right.
As to the siphoning thing, Paul will definitely siphon votes from anti war voters who are not Marxists and don’t like Hillary (Karl Marx in a pantsuit). However, don’t discount a few votes being siphoned from libertarians in the GOP who are sick of “Republicans” co-opting Big Gubmint to suit their agenda.
That's exactly it. Some people define "winning" in the traditional sense, which is understandable. Winning = You get sworn into office and get more votes than the other guy. And you gain power.
If any candidate, Ron Paul happens to be the topic du jour, were able to scare the crap out of BOTH parties even while going down in a blaze of glory...that would be priceless. That's what I want to see.
Between me, you and everyone else who reads this I will tell you honestly and directly...if I thought he could actually win for real in the traditional sense, I would be terrified. We can't surrender to the islamofascists.
Since that is not the case, Ron Paul can do what Goldwater did in 64. "Lose" an election but change the political discourse for the next 40 years. He has to run on the LP ticket to do that after gaining some relevance with a respectable showing in the GOP primary. Otherwise tx is right and he is just doing all of this to enrich himself on the lecture circuit and get a bigger bonus for his book deal.
It surely doesn’t take long for his pronouncements to make the Hit Parade there.
Ron Paul in aspects is every bit as much an enemy as active Islamo-terrorists - for he ultimately provides both the inspiration and the propaganda for their murderous actions.
Undeniably true.
Hey, the Alex Jones show was a great thing to listen to on night shift. Not as fun as Art Bell (who else can make a multi hour show about a hole in some guys pasture?), but still good brain candy.
The difference is that they guys on Coast to Coast know it is all in good fun, and roll with it. Jones actually believes some of the stuff he is pedaling.
Jones was peddling his crap for decades...during the 90’s it was UN take overs, black helecopters ,ruby ridge, waco, clintonian conspiracies for perpetual rule...etc etc..
Mcveigh wasnt born from “talk” radio...
He was born from CT nutcases like Alex Jones...
The next Mcviegh will come from the troother crowd...
well thanks for that reply, I’ve seen those transcripts before and, obviously, his responses could have been a lot better. I’m not sure why he thinks the ‘democrat’ investigation would be any better, especially puzzling. Still, you can’t prove a negative, in other words, just because Paul didn’t say something or respond to something in his response doesn’t mean he believes it.
You say he is pandering or hedging around his answers with the minority of his base who are fringe kooks etc.., despite his explicit denials of their beliefs elswhere. Again, I find this hard to believe after watching him offer the opposite of what the traditional leanings of the ‘value voters’ and ‘minority voters’ tend to in those debates. But for sake of argument, let’s say he is, let’s say he sort of tippy toes around the questions he gets from these groups in order to win their support, while rebutting them elsewhere.
Yet even so, even despite this, I think you’re still missing the bigger picture. All politicians do this, they all play to their audiences, look at Rudy at the NRA, which doesn’t excuse it, but it also doesn’t take away from the fact that Paul is the only candidate that will drastically cut the Federal government and severely repeal/dent socialism in the United States. Why focus so on the ant hill under our foot rather than the mountain on our backs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.