Since we know most the crazies buying into 9/11 conpiracy theories exist on the left, I’m wondering what will happen when they actually read into his voting record on social issues.
“There have always been rotten Republicans, but there are no good Democrats” – Ann Coulter
 | Alan Ocu on Obama For Gay Marriage… |
 | Qwerty on Obama For Gay Marriage… |
 | Mel Maguire on Obama For Gay Marriage… |
 | phoenicks10 on Obama For Gay Marriage… |
 | Luke on Obama For Gay Marriage… |
 | Mike on Obama For Gay Marriage… |
 | Dad, Help Me He Said on Police State |
| phoenicks10 on Obama For Gay Marriage… |
| Mel Maguire on Obama For Gay Marriage… |
| Mike on Police State |
| Mel Maguire on Question? Answer. |
| Luke on Question? Answer. |
 | Anonymous on White Pride! White Power!… |
 | Camryn on …Because Evil Persi… |
 | erins1911 on Question? Answer. |
steveflesher
Philip
Mark Ciavola
Comments
Yes, what a lousy voting record. I hear he based the votes for his entire career on the “Constitution.”
I mean, the guy didn’t even give Bush the right to suspend Habeus Corpus and create secret military tribunals…. like hello!
“Yes, what a lousy voting record. I hear he based the votes for his entire career on the “Constitution.”
I love people who do that! Like Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia.
Oh wait – you’re talking about people who CONVOLUTE the Constitution to make up rights that never existed in the first place.
Yeah suspending Habeus Corpus is a total act of hate! Someone should dig up Abraham Lincoln and censure him for doing so during the Civil War.
As I quoted” “lots of BAD Republicans, no good Democrats” – Ron Paul comes to mind.
Reguardless of whether one agrees with the outcome of the civil war, was Lincoln right in suspending habeus corpus? I don’t think so. We’re fortunate it was restored but given the wrong leadership, it is quite possible it would be abused. It’s not worth taking the chance.
Yes, it was right to suspend habeus corpus during the Civil War. Our leaders would not dare impose it as a standard after a catastrophe. The Dems would like to think that, but I’ll guarantee you they would give Hillary a pass if she did it, because the Dems would come up with some lame excuse.
Remember, Clinton said there were WMDs, Hillary said there were WMDs, but none of that matters, because they were misled.
Hmmm, I wonder if Hillary would ever suspend habeus corpus?
When pushed against a wall (ugly thought), she would in a heartbeat.
Yeah, Bill, just make sure the rights of the terrorists are upheld.
Good going, Bill.
Ron Paul promoted by which 9/11 conspiracy theorists?…
Name names!
Don’t be shy!
The link is in the opening heading of this post:
http://houston911truth.org/2007/05/30/ron-paul-1-most-demanded-republican-presidential-candidate/
Uh, listen to the last debate CADEVEO.
He’s one of the conspiracy theorists – you don’t need a reference.
Devil Dog: saying that US intervention in the Middle East incites anti-American hatred and violence does not make one a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.
tjg, I bet Nazis hated us for fighting back, too.
But when people make it seems as if it was our involvement and fighting back (like when our Americans were taking hostage in 1979) that opened the can, they are absolutely wrong as that is ridiculous. The US has tried diplomacy and guess what? They still used force to make their political and religious points. At the request of Lebanon in 1983, Reagan worked to establish a peace-keeping force between Muslims & Christians. Guess what? It didn’t – our marine barracks were still attacked and almost 300 American troops were killed.
Enough is enough. Ron Paul was appealing to a minority of crazies. Luckily there aren’t enough of them to give him the primary.
A lot of people on the left, right and center support Ron Paul.
A lot of people on the right, left and center don’t buy the official fairytale of what really happened on 9/11.
And your point is??????
In any event, anyone who would believe that THOUSANDS of tons of concrete and glass could spontaneously pulverize into fine powder in mid air in less than 15 seconds due to a mere gravitational collapse is a fucking idiot.
…
More anti-war goons support him than anything. Next in line are the ones that think some special ingredigent was mixed into the cement of the WTC that “pulverize” concrete and glass into fine powder. Say was 9/11 planned when the buildings were initiated in 1960 by Rockefeller? Oh no, I think I’ve just created another conspiracy.
It’s called weight, momentum, and HEAT.
No right-wingers are jumping on any insane conspiracy wagons. That is precisely why RP will never win the primary because this fine-picked collection of nuts are supporting him.
BTW go to the WTC and get a look at the people demonstrating and holding signs “9/11 was an inside job.” They look off-putting and kinda crazy.
Ron Paul has support from across the spectrum. White, black, gay, straight, evolution theorists, creationism theorists, 9/11 theorists, relativity theorists…
You don’t have to belong to some group to support freedom.
Do you even know what the national debt is or what it is? Have you ever looked at gov’t stats?
Do you know who David Walker is?
Do you know he is the head of the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that audits and evaluates the performance of the federal government?
Which means he is the HIGHEST level accountant in the United States.
What doe he and his fellow Economists say at the end of 2006?
“that closing those gaps – $8 trillion for Social Security, many times that for Medicare – and paying off the existing deficit would require either an immediate doubling of personal and corporate income taxes, a two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits, or some combination of the two. ”
No, you don’t know. Reading, learning, and debating would require thought and reason.
Ron Paul will be the NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!
“You don’t have to belong to some group to support freedom.”
Ahh but Elwar, you do have to be part of some group to support abortion. Get a look at Ron Paul’s quote on abortion that I dug up. 1/30/2006 to be exact. He believes there is absolutely NO right to abortion in the Constitution! He thinks Roe v Wade was a GIANT mistake.
I’m guessing he’ll say the same thing about gay marriage.
I guess it requires the “reading, learning, debating, thought, and reason yapped on about by “Proud(of I don’t know what kind of)American.”
What the Proudster seems to be forgetting is that Paul will NEVER win the primary. Come back after the Iowa caucus and let’s have this discussion again.
But then again; Proud American, that would require reading, learning, debating in the realm of REALITY, wouldn’t it?
Which REALITY, Steve? Yours? There is such a thing as really real reality, but you will not find it in the realm of words–that realm can only point at something real, but never grasp it. Once you open your mouth or tap your fingers on the keyboard, you are in the realm of metaphor–poetry: signposts, not REALITY.
Devil Dog: “conspiracy theorists” are in the eye of the beholder; and what the beholder “sees” is based upon what does and does not filter into hir reality tunnel…
Cadeveo:
If you really think that Proud American is onto something y saying that RP “will be the next President” then I’m sorry, the realm of reality is indeed on my side.
He’s not going to win the nomination!
I don’t believe I ever said or typed that I “really think” anything of the sort. Read carefully, Steve. Or just feel free to assume what you will. I’m fine with that, too.
The probability of RP winning the nomination is similar to the probability of the Senators beating the Globetrotters, in the poem I’m presenting …but that’s just the first stanza. (Suppose you could also call that poem a “theory” if that’s what fits your framework. I’m not gonna stop you, nor could I.)
The realm of reality isn’t on anyone’s side, Steve. The realm of reality just is. And if you’re there, you’re there. But if one believes the literalness of any words s/he’s typing/speaking upon the matter, then s/he’s probably not there. All words simplify reality to paint particular pictures.
So it’d be just as effective if I said that we could dig up Ronald Reagan and re-elect him?
It is reasonable to assume that PA is missing out on reality by saying something like that. The reality comment was also directed to him.
Reality is important when deciding on things like this, making assumptions, predicitons, etc. If we fail to use it, it makes us look kind of crazy.
I did say to PA though to come back after the Iowa Caucas. Don’t take my word for it, let time tell the story.
Anyone who buys into 9/11 conspiracy theories or myths of Ron Paul winning the Presidency are missing a major chunk of reality, I’m sorry.
Let’s take a poll on it.
What do you mean by “effective”? What is it exactly that you are making a counter-argument against?
Again, PA is “missing out on” which reality? Reality with a big R? Or some finite sub-reality, the reality of political probabilities? It appears that you have decided/assumed what Reality with a big R is and that you are using it. Correct me if I’m wrong. I’d posit you are using a sub-set, the realm of political probabilities, based upon certain pieces of Reality that you allow in your framework and not on others, which you do not allow in your framework.
If we fail to use the same general assumptions and frameworks as the collection of individuals that comprises your audience/target market, then…yes, it might make someone “look kind of crazy” to that group, but so what? “Looking crazy” does not necessarily equal “being crazy” or wrong. Some one might get quite a few “hits” in their predictions using one kind of evidence and someone else might get the same or different hits based on a different evidence based on an entirely different framework of things. It’s a question of what’s useful for *you.* Eventually, a framework will cease to be useful and the individual will either revise it, discard it or hold onto hit obsessively.
Don’t worry Steve, I don’t know you so I wouldn’t take your word for anything. I don’t necessarily take my word for it, either!
One other stanza to the poem I’m typing is: the Iowa Caucus doesn’t matter; it’s an empty ritual, regardless of the outcome. Guiliani vs. Hilary in 2008, it’s already a done deal–the rest is TV.
I’d tell you not to take my word for it, but thankfully, my guess is that you don’t!
You’re conflating things in you’re penultimate statement, in my view, Steve. It would be more accurate for you to say, “Anyone who buys into 9/11 conspiracy theories or myths of Ron Paul winning the Presidency are missing a major chunk of reality as I, Steve, perceive it.”
And again, why do you need to be sorry about how *you* Steve filter reality? Are you embarrassed by it? (Don’t worry, I don’t *believe* you are.) Or is it an “I’m sorry” in the sense that somebody’s wise dad “breaks the cold, hard truth” to his child. My *perception* is that’s what you’re going for and, it seems kinda condescending. You’re not an authority and neither am I, except insofar as we are *authorities* over how we filter reality within our own brains. And that’s really nothing to get condescending about. (I’ve certainly been guilty of condescension, too…it’s a great trick for coaxing conversation.)
What exactly would the point of a “poll on it” be?
It would only *prove* that a certain percentage of people seem to share a certain way of perceiving things; it doesn’t really say anything about reality.
And again, I don’t believe that RP will win anything…as far as 9/11 conspiracy “theories,” that’s just a catch-all phrase, practically meaningless in my view. There exist quite a few anomolies, strange circumstances and the like–these are filtered out of some people’s perception of reality and not filtered out of other people’s perceptions of reality. And for those whose perceptions allow for these real anomolies and strange circumstances, they have built a variety of competing “frameworks” for perceiving what those events and evidences *mean.* Some of the *meanings* or “conspiracy theories” ascribed are clearer, some are more cleaner or more artistic, some are more *probable* than others.
I’m enjoying this virtual interaction, Steve. I look forward to reading your future perceptions.
Peace,
Cadeveo
Cadeveo:
I’d implore you to go back to 2004 where everyone thought the Democratic-Presidential nominee was going to be Howard Dean – UP UNTIL the Iowa Caucus.
I wouldn’t be hugely disappointed if Giuliani wins the primary. However; all of the news and everyone’s top story is the speculation of Fred Thompson.
That to me is the more probable candidate for conservatives. I also tell you (realistically with a big R) that Giuliani is a lot more nervous this week than he was last week.
Finally, it is reality (with a big R) that is defied when someone says that Ron Paul WILL be the next President.
Call it hyperbole on my behalf but I really think my suggestion of digging up Reagan and putting him back in power is closer to reality (with a big R) than the chances of Ron Paul ever becoming President.
Now, before you analyze that paragraph, ask yourself “what is the broader point being made” – I think you know what that is.
Thanks for your perceptions and thoughtful comments.
Steve
Steve, since you are so pro-war, are we to assume that you’re either in the military or will be joining soon? Also, how can you rip on Ron Paul’s views about our interventionalism when those are the same views held by Michael Scheuer, the former CIA expert on Osama/Al Queda?
Derek it’s not wise to “assume” anything.
People who “assume” set at the same mind-level of a third grader whose argument stops at “you must join something to support something.” Do you assume everyone joins the fire department or police in fighting fires and crime? I’m sure you fully practice that ideology everyday in your life of point-prooving.
Scheuer was not an expert. He wasn’t even an operative. He was an outside analyst brought in to “study Osama.” I’d say we knew all we needed to know but that’s just me.
Ron Paul simply acted as an opportunist to appeal to crazy folk. It worked! But fortunately, crazies don’t decide on electing Presidents. But they are fun to make fun of!
If he won though, Republicans would get a lot more out of him than Democrats would. As I said 50 times in these discussions, I’m proud liberals are endorsing him instead of Kucinich or Edwards.
Paul does have impeccable anti-Roe v Wade statements, so he’s not all that bad.
The reality CADEVEO, is Ron Paul is off his rocker and the American people, as a whole, do not believe in the conspiracy theories of the left wing loons.
PERIOD.
But, hey, RP might as well be a lefty because he fits within that crowd that Hillary and Barack are pandering to.
Hillary and Barack’s opposition to the war funding will come back to haunt them. I can see the commercials now. That’s not a right wing agenda, that was entirely her and his voting.
Devil Dog, you’re all caps thing makes me laugh with joy. Who exactly are you yelling at?
It’s more accurate to say/yell/type, “The reality for ME, CADEVEO, is Ron Paul is off his rocker…”
Who are these left wing loons you speak of? Sound like a scary bunch.
The “American people, as a whole” is an abstraction–have you met this “American people, as a whole”? Where do they exist–in poll numbers? in statistics? between Pittsburgh and Tempe?
You have to be a bit more precise about “conspiracy theories”–it’s a meaningless phrase. What “meanings ascribed to events on 9/11″ constitute, in your reality framework, “conspiracy theories”? And why? Once you honestly look at that, you might find that you and the “loons” are just as loony (as we all are), just in slightly different ways.
“What the perceiver perceives, the prover proves.”
Cadeveo,
I happen to agree with a lot of Devil Dog’s perceptions of the conpiracy theorists. I appreciate your in-depth perception of the comments made – but I’d like your perceptions on Rosie O’Donnell or someone like RP that implies such nonsense.
I know (as I’m sure you do) that Ronald Reagan tried to establish peacekeeping between Muslims and Christians in Beirut. (The most liberal thing he ever did – besides advocating amnesty to illegals in 1986.) The peace-loving Muslims responded by attacking our barracks and also a year earlier they blew up the embassy in Beirut.
People then say that acts of defense against these people “contribute” to 9/11. If Ron Paul was going to use that analogy correctly, he should use it as a reason to continue the fight – as we are doing. Not that we should pull out and leave Iraq as a breeding ground for these people to gain power.
No Christian (even the late-big-bad Jerry Falwell) advocated killing infidels. These people are crossing the line.
We know “peaceful” Muslims could organize themselves in protest over Danish cartoons.
We know “peaceful” Muslims have no problem organizing themselves in strong protest against a quote uttered by the Pope.
We know that “peaceful” Muslims can organize themselves into protest over immigration-law proposals in the United States.
When are the “peaceful” Muslims going to unite to join US forces in fighting off the insurgency as well as the Jihadists that are indeed the ones acting irrationally?
Turning a blind eye is not going to fix this and no matter what he tries to tell you, this is the basic message uttered by Ron Paul in a sad attempt to act as an opportunist.
Yeah, Cadeveo, the caps are so you can see someone responding to your posts.
So, from your post, I guess you suppose that a majority or most, however deep you wish to get into your own thinking, Americans agree with Ron Paul. They think he a kook.
Rudy was right to call him on his outrageous comments at the recent Republican debate.
Did you even watch the debate, Cadeveo?
He is a loon and a loser.
He will be dropping out soon, as will Brownback, Tancredo, Hunter, Gilmore, Huckabee and Tommy Thompson. These guys will be dropping out because of lack of funds. Paul will be dropping out because of lack of character.
To imply this country brought 9/11 on itself is utterly disgusting. Isolationism has never been one of our strongest traits – it only invites the bad people to take advantage of us.
No, Devil Dog. Your assumption is wrong. I don’t “suppose that a majority or most…Americans agree with Ron Paul” because I’ve never met or spoken to an actual “majority or most” Americans as actual existing individuals. Even if I did believe what you assume I believe about what “most” Americans think about RP, it’s a non-argument. A majority of any given group of individuals thinking something says nothing about the validity of the ideas being discussed…nor does a minority say anything about an ideas validity or invalidity. All it says is such and such number of people believe in a certain way…according to the way the issue has been framed.
Having worked in market research, I’m aware how easy it is to get certain answers from a polled group based upon how you word the questions, the order in which you present them and the context in which you frame a question (a favorite trick used to be a droning three paragraph set up to a short yes or no survey item), and the choices you give regarding the question asked, which partially (sometimes heavily?) is determined by the client(s) for whom the study’s conducted.
So, if I believe anything…it would be a non-belief in polls. I believe them to just be a slicker form of creating mass hypnosis…I saw polls from a few years ago that stated a majority of Americans believed in WMDs or Saddam’s involvement in 9/11…and in the past year I’ve seen polls saying a majority of people disbelieve the official story re: 9/11…and so what? Unless you’ve seen the questions in the studies in light of all the above issues, it means a whole lot of nothing at the end of the day. But that’s just my view.
“Outrageous” and “nonsense” are simply pejorative terms…you mean outrageous and nonsense to you (DD and Steve); some will agree with those characterizations of RP’s comments, others will not. And again, so what?
Seems to me you’re suffering from a false identification. You say isolationism has never been one of “our” strongest traits. Who is the we in this statement? Neither you nor I nor Steve is privy to the high-level decisions made by administrations, past or future, unless at such time as we become direct members of said administrative class. If by “our” you mean the “American people” as a whole or a majority…again, the “isolationism” of that collection of individuals does not necessarily have any bearing on the isolationism of administrators.
But here’s the crux of what I’m perceiving as your false-identification and the reason you find what you perceive RP to be implying to be “utterly disgusting,” DD.
The “administration” or the collection of individuals comprising “the government” may (symbolically) represent you or me or Steve (and each of you know how imperfectly you’re representatives have “represented” you in the past; that’s why you vote them out of office and vote in someone else). But the collection of individuals comprising “government” are NOT you or me or Steve; and they, despite the conflation of terms that they often encourage, consciously or accidentally (b/c they are humans with sloppy thinking just like the rest of us)–they are NOT “this country.” They merely “represent” it. So if RP has suggested that the actions of the collection of individuals acting as administrators to the affairs of “this country,” who, by the way are Not actually this country (just a privileged subset of all the individuals comprising it), has resulted in the deaths of quite a few of the other individuals comprising this country, i.e. the non-administrators and non-representatives, well…that doesn’t seem an unreasonable or implausible argument at all to me.
And I’d posit that similar tragedies have happened and continue to happen all the time on equal, larger and smaller scales everywhere in the world.
Here’s a scenario for you. Suppose a guy (me) has a brother who is a rich, powerful, has lots of money, clout, his own company, the whole nine. He, either callously and consciously or from unintentionally–it doesn’t matter which–happens to piss off a sketchy guy with a long memory and an addiction to vengeance. Now seeing that my brother lives in a gated community with high security, the chances of the sketchy guy getting to my brother are slim…but if he can use some of his shady street connections to front him some money and some artillery and a couple of willing thugs, he’s got a pretty fair chance of taking me out (and I know nothing about this sketchy guy or anything that happened between him and my brother and, lucky for sketchy guy, I live in a modest home with no gate and no security guards). Maybe, if he’s lucky, sketchy guy can also take out some of my brother’s employees who live around his heavily secured mansion, just not in it. My brother’s employees also know nothing about this sketchy guy or any way in which my brother may have offended/hurt/or slighted him, either.
Now, let’s say the sketchy guy is successful. He puts a dozen bullets in me and successfully knocks off a few of my brother’s employees. Did I bring this terrible fate upon myself? Did my brother’s employees?…Of course not. That’s an utterly stupid argument. Somehow, it seems you believe that this is what RP is doing: blaming the innocent dead guys, but it isn’t and it’s intellectually lazy or dishonest to say so.
Back to the analogy:
Now, do I (dead as I am right now) and the deceased employees and our relatives, have a right to blame my brother? Well, hell if I know. It depends on what my brother did to piss this guy off and whether or not he knew what kind of crazy-ass person he was dealing with, and whether or not my brother could have anticipated the course of action this guy would take as a result and finally, if knowing all that, my brother made adequate efforts to warn/protect me and his employers. If I could discern that my brother did something severely messed up to our hypothetical sketchy guy (or something that would be perceived as such), and he could have anticipated the reaction, then I might justifiably say, “well, my brother’s partially responsible”; if I could further say my brother, after all that, did not pursue all reasonable means to warn & protect me and his employees, I wouldn’t be entirely wrong to say, “well, I’m going to blame my brother for our deaths.” But you can’t make those statements without all the information. You might suspect my brother shares a level of responsibility, but you can’t prove it and would be going a bit far to “blame” him, without that information. But in any case it would be intellectually lazy, dishonest or just stupid for someone to say, because your blaming Cadeveo’s brother, you are also blaming Cadeveo for being dead. That’s just plain not listening. But that’s just my view.
But let’s go further. Take this hypothetical case of my brother and the sketchy guy he pissed off and the resultant offing of me (his easier to get-to relative) and his employees. Let’s assume that there’s no way my brother knew the kind of crazy bastard he was dealing with. And given this, let’s also assume there’s no way my brother, who’s a pretty good person, could have anticipated the bloody results of offending this sketchy character. Now, again, I am dead and my brother’s employees are dead and obviously, we are not to blame. But given the second and third sentences of this paragraph, my brother is also not responsible in any sense nor is he to blame, either. However, now that the isht has gone down…and my brother is aware of the course of action that, in the past, has resulted in sketchy mo-fo’s going out and getting at innocent members of his family and company, well…it’s not unreasonable to suggest that my brother avoid putting himself into situations where he might inadvertently piss of loose-cannon sketchy guys. And nowhere, in making that suggestion to my brother, would you be suggesting that me (the dead guy) or my brother’s employees(the other dead guys) “brought” death “on” ourselves.
Likewise, the administration (this one and/or previous ones), not being “the people” or “this country,” but merely a very minute, albeit disproportionately influential, subset of those two groupings, did not “bring 9/11″ upon itself……its employees and a few thousand fellow citizens that have no face-t0-face contact with this small number of administrators and policymakers, got 9/11 brought upon it. The latter are NOT responsible for it, nor is DD or Steve or me. Do those administrators and policymakers hold responsibility for actions that “brought 9/11″ on other, innocent members of “this country”? That’s not a settled issue, where I’m concerned, and it doesn’t seem “kooky” or “loony” to bring it up or to suggest it as a possibility.
Apologies for the all-caps. Didn’t mean to yell.
Wordy and full of nothing.
Thanks, Cadeveo. Thanks for wasting my time with your psycho-babble.
Yes, wordy. You’re absolutely right about that. Some things require a lot of words to get across, but maybe not as many as I tend to use.
It’s actually called a logical argument utilizing general semantics. But if you say it’s psycho-babble, well…I’m certainly in no position to say how you perceive it.
And you’re welcome.
The year 2001 should not be repeated