# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Ventura ended his chance to run as President...

## Zera

He did so when he made it pretty apparent that he is a truther on TV.  This would be brought up instantly... Do you see that running very smoothly at all?  We still have time to pick someone, let's not just rush into something just because he's all we know as of the very moment.

----------


## FrankRep

Questions are evil.

----------


## Zera

> Questions are evil.


They are when people will see you as a lunatic when you ask them.  You can never question something as touchy as 9/11 when running for the highest office in the country.  Sorry, but it's just true.

----------


## aspiringconstitutionalist

> He did so when he made it pretty apparent that he is a truther on TV.  This would be brought up instantly... Do you see that running very smoothly at all?  We still have time to pick someone, let's not just rush into something just because he's all we know as of the very moment.


Actually, I believe he's said he doesn't have any particular views on 9/11, he just thinks certain things are "suspicious."

----------


## RSLudlum

> Questions are evil.


no, Evil is questioning authority.

----------


## FrankRep

> They are when people will see you as a lunatic when you ask them.  You can never question something as touchy as 9/11 when running for the highest office in the country.  Sorry, but it's just true.


Plus, you won't have mainstream support unless you support the Council on Foreign Relations and Globalism.

----------


## libertythor

> He did so when he made it pretty apparent that he is a truther on TV.  This would be brought up instantly... Do you see that running very smoothly at all?  We still have time to pick someone, let's not just rush into something just because he's all we know as of the very moment.


It wouldn't be that big of a liability.  He hasn't stated specific theories.

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> Actually, I believe he's said he doesn't have any particular views on 9/11, he just thinks certain things are "suspicious."


 Where was that?

----------


## FrankRep

Why aren't we allowed to question the "mainstream" conspiracy theory of 9/11?

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> He did so when he made it pretty apparent that he is a truther on TV.  This would be brought up instantly... Do you see that running very smoothly at all?  We still have time to pick someone, let's not just rush into something just because he's all we know as of the very moment.


4 years from now the truth movement will become a massive force. Do not underestimate that.

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> Why aren't we allowed to question the "mainstream" conspiracy theory of 9/11?


Simple, because fascism has taken over!

----------


## Kotin

um no..

----------


## FrankRep

Jesse Ventura has guts! I love it.

----------


## ClayTrainor

Questioning 911 will not ruin his chances.  He will have Paul and Kucinich at his side on this issue i am sure of it once 2012 comes along.

Re-investigate with subpoena power, that's all we need.

----------


## anaconda

> He did so when he made it pretty apparent that he is a truther on TV


Not necessarily. If the truth movement catches on a bit more, his interest in the subject could be a political plus. He makes for a good messenger for the subject. I mean, Ventura is a real "maverick." Also, there is always the possibility of a journalistic break through with 9-11 that could help greatly. A  la pentagon papers or Watergate cover ups. I really don't see a problem with a candidate suggesting a new and more complete investigation. That is an easy position to defend if you know your details. The facts are on the side of truth. It is a reasonable part of an agenda that many people would welcome. I don't think it should be presented as a major issue. But just as a obvious one that is second nature and a no-brainer.

----------


## amy31416

For god's sake, it's not questioning 9/11 that ruins his chances, it's simply the way he looks, dresses and acts. America is very superficial.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> For god's sake, it's not questioning 9/11 that ruins his chances, it's simply the way he looks, dresses and acts. America is very superficial.


lmao!

John McCain is the republican Nominee... Who would you rather look at for 4 years?

----------


## RevolutionSD

> He did so when he made it pretty apparent that he is a truther on TV.  This would be brought up instantly... Do you see that running very smoothly at all?  We still have time to pick someone, let's not just rush into something just because he's all we know as of the very moment.


He asked valid questions.
Do you have a problem with questions? If so, what specifically is the problem?

----------


## idiom

in 2012 the attacks will be 11 years old... Over a decade, there are statutes of limitations on these things....

----------


## amy31416

> lmao!
> 
> John McCain is the republican Nominee... Who would you rather look at for 4 years?


Oh Jessie for sure, but hell, look at the boost that Obama and McCain got from pure superficiality.

I like to think that I almost always don't operate on that level--I know what attractive is, but I do try to never let it sway my thoughts.

----------


## Flash

> 4 years from now the truth movement will become a massive force. Do not underestimate that.


Is the 9/11 Truth movement really growing that fast?

----------


## Zera

> Is the 9/11 Truth movement really growing that fast?


It's not.  And the association of just the small minority of Paul supporters being truthers harmed the campaign before the primaries.  It did, and don't deny.  

The truther movement will never get big because everyone thinks it's just stupid.  I really don't care either way myself, but many just won't stand for it.

----------


## cindy25

just try convincing people that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance.

the average person just is so dumb sometimes

----------


## richardfortherepublic

That pissed me off when someone called up during the comment part before Ron's speech, saying he was a McCain supporter and he wanted concentration camps, then said 'on the other hand, Viva Revolution!' 

That's the kind of stuff that makes me never want to say 9/11 was an 'inside job' (it wasn't, Americans didn't fly into the buildings or plant bombs. That's what saying 'inside job' would suggest.. its far more complicated then that.) 

But doing stuff like that discredits the legitimacy of our movement.

A lot of you "truthers" favorite movie is V for Vendetta. One man stood up, and people took notice... throughout most of the movie, you would think that he didn't have the support of the people, but this was not true... 

The state did not allow such dissent, and it was personal conversations with their neighbors and friends, not obnoxious vulgar screaming and endless questioning in the spotlight that eventually turned the tides for the favor of the people.

And when the time was right, they showed their presence in the face of tyranny. 

Shouldn't the truthers know by now that the MSN will stray and skew the real meaning of your protests, and they will convey their interpretation of your views to the public. 

9/11 truth needs to reconsider their "campaign."

*Edit* That being said, Jesse handled himself like a pro. While 9/11 truth may find it easy to leave their comfort zones of perceived reality, it is difficult for middle America to do so while they are raising a family with hard work, and loyalty to their nation (not suggesting truthers aren't, quite the contrary, but you understand)

It is exactly like convincing an average American to take LSD, because it will change their reality for the better... while this is not always true. Alot of people may take it and it will improve their lives vastly, but there will always be the few that it will destroy... This is because not everyone is ready to see what is on the other side of their perceived reality. 

So it is extremely important to work within the confines of their reality... this can be achieved by the asking of simple questions that may be remaining in the minds of Americans, without spewing 'magic bullet' theories.

----------


## max

> He did so when he made it pretty apparent that he is a truther on TV.  This would be brought up instantly... Do you see that running very smoothly at all?  We still have time to pick someone, let's not just rush into something just because he's all we know as of the very moment.


So you prefer being a 9/11 "falser" as opposed to a truther?

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

My 72 year old mother said when she saw Jesse Ventura on tv she thought he was crazy...that's mainstream America.  Most people dont' know what we know..and it sounds very foreign and nutty to them.  Somehow we have to ease them into the truth..but how?  tones

----------


## Imperial

I personally think we should run with Gary Johnson in the primaries for the Repubs, and if we cannot win with him then go to Ventura.

But I don't see a huge umbrella movement coming from that. No, sadly I think we must wait a few years for a new standardbearer of liberty.

However, we must use the time before then to build the Campaign for Liberty. Congress, State Legislature, Local Positions, Grassroots, the works.

Then, when that figure arises, we will all know it in our hearts. And we will be ready.

----------


## V-rod

I think Ventura just brought up 9/11 truth on tv and radio because its a good way to get people to stop asking him to run for office and let him enjoy his retirement in Mexico.

----------


## pacelli

> He did so when he made it pretty apparent that he is a truther on TV.  This would be brought up instantly... Do you see that running very smoothly at all?  We still have time to pick someone, let's not just rush into something just because he's all we know as of the very moment.


I didn't see it that way at all.  I see it as a former Governor and Navy veteran who was asking some questions about the way in which the DoJ and FBI are choosing to conduct their prosecution of OBL. Valid questions that should have been asked long ago.

----------


## FrankRep

> I didn't see it that way at all.  I see it as a former Governor and Navy veteran who was asking some questions about the way in which the DoJ and FBI are choosing to conduct their prosecution of OBL. Valid questions that should have been asked long ago.


Jesse Ventura was on the Alex Jones show before and said he doesn't believe in the official 9/11 story.

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> It's not.  And the association of just the small minority of Paul supporters being truthers harmed the campaign before the primaries.  It did, and don't deny.  
> 
> The truther movement will never get big because everyone thinks it's just stupid.  I really don't care either way myself, but many just won't stand for it.


That is simply not true, truthers are not minority but the majority. You never noticed this poll or what? 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...12#post1645912

----------


## evilfunnystuff

> I didn't see it that way at all.  I see it as a former Governor and Navy veteran who was asking some questions about the way in which the DoJ and FBI are choosing to conduct their prosecution of OBL. Valid questions that should have been asked long ago.


NAVY SEAL

dont forget harvard professor

hmmm what ekse

----------


## richardfortherepublic

Just because he is of a higher intellect then someone else that says the opposite, doesn't mean he is correct.

----------


## Trigonx

For the people who hate the truthers and can't stand why they keep trying to speak out the un-popular message that they do, take a few minutes or hours and see why they act and speak out like they do.  Try to understand the questions that are asked by victim's families.  

I think that the truth movement can only grow, Truth is truth and doesn't change because some one doesn't like the truth.  If they were telling us complete bull$#@! don't you think it'd be dubbed another name besides the "truth movement" by people who are against it.

----------


## richardfortherepublic

> That pissed me off when someone called up during the comment part before Ron's speech, saying he was a McCain supporter and he wanted concentration camps, then said 'on the other hand, Viva Revolution!' 
> 
> That's the kind of stuff that makes me never want to say 9/11 was an 'inside job' (it wasn't, Americans didn't fly into the buildings or plant bombs. That's what saying 'inside job' would suggest.. its far more complicated then that.) 
> 
> But doing stuff like that discredits the legitimacy of our movement.
> 
> A lot of you "truthers" favorite movie is V for Vendetta. One man stood up, and people took notice... throughout most of the movie, you would think that he didn't have the support of the people, but this was not true... 
> 
> The state did not allow such dissent, and it was personal conversations with their neighbors and friends, not obnoxious vulgar screaming and endless questioning in the spotlight that eventually turned the tides for the favor of the people.
> ...


quoting myself...

It does matter how you act, because it is your demeanor that may convince people to listen to you.

----------


## Mini-Me

> That is simply not true, truthers are not minority but the majority. You never noticed this poll or what? 
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...12#post1645912


I mentioned to you in another thread that you give way too much weight to certain evidence and bathe it in superlatives to pretend like it's irrefutable, and that hurts your credibility in the eyes of objective people.

This is another pretty good example, although the superlative descriptions are in this case implied rather than expressed.  You're using a poll conducted by Ron Paul Forums members, and not just any RPF members, but those who chose to participate in a thread regarding 9/11 truth (i.e. those not annoyed enough to ignore it), and acting as if they are representative of the US population as a whole.  *Can you seriously say with a straight face that we at RPF are actually a representative sample of the entire US population?*  If we were, Ron Paul would have easily won the Republican primary!  Seriously, do you not even see the problems with your methodology?

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> I mentioned to you in another thread that you give way too much weight to certain evidence and bathe it in superlatives to pretend like it's irrefutable, and that hurts your credibility in the eyes of objective people.
> 
> This is another pretty good example, although the superlative descriptions are in this case implied rather than expressed.  You're using a poll conducted by Ron Paul Forums members, and not just any RPF members, but those who chose to participate in a thread regarding 9/11 truth (i.e. those not annoyed enough to ignore it), and acting as if they are representative of the US population as a whole.  *Can you seriously say with a straight face that we at RPF are actually a representative sample of the entire US population?*  If we were, Ron Paul would have easily won the Republican primary!  Seriously, do you not even see the problems with your methodology?


Mini-Mi, do you consider yourself as an objective person? 




> You're using a poll conducted by Ron Paul Forums members, and not just any RPF members, but those who chose to participate in a thread regarding 9/11 truth (i.e. those not annoyed enough to ignore it),


That was really so objective of you 

What can I do if you cannot even accept the undeniable evidence. 

At the end, those who do not vote are not counted. Its like if you are telling me that GWB is not the president of the United States because some registered voters chose not to vote for whatever reason (ex: not interested etc....). What kind of logic is that? 

At the end of the day those who voted are those who count and at the end of the day GWB is the president of United States and at the end of the day truthers are the majority.

It is not that difficult man.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Mini-Mi, do you consider yourself as an objective person? 
> 
> 
> That was really so objective of you 
> 
> What can I do if you cannot even accept the undeniable evidence. 
> 
> At the end, those who do not vote are not counted. Its like if you are telling me that GWB is not the president of the United States because some registered voters chose not to vote for whatever reason (ex: not interested etc....). What kind of logic is that? 
> 
> ...



ARE YOU EVEN KIDDING ME?  Is this April fricking first?

You're attacking MY objectivity because I'm pointing out that the poll isn't in any way representative of the population, and therefore cannot be used to infer the mindset of Americans in general?  You're calling such an obviously biased poll "undeniable evidence?"  THAT is the sign of someone lacking in objectivity.  I won't even group you in with the rest of the truthers anymore, because I believe that any respectable truther would be insulted by the association.  In fact, I pray for their sake that you're not even a real truther, and that you're just some hack who's purposely trying to make them look as moronic as possible.

*To show you how absurd your logic is, consider what would happen if the MSM polled the members of the Bush administration today and asked them what they think about 9/11:*
When 99% respond saying it was Al Qaeda (and odds are 100% would respond that way), would you really consider that sample to be representative of the US population as a whole?  If you consistently held that poll to the same weak standards that you hold the RPF poll, you'd have no choice but to answer "Yes."  However, that would completely contradict prior results obtained from the RPF poll - after all, 99% of Americans cannot believe Al Qaeda did 9/11 when the majority believe it was an inside job (unless people are so fickle that the majority of Americans did a total 180 on this in the last week and a half).

The point here is that NEITHER poll can accurately reflect the mindset of Americans as a whole, because NEITHER poll is in any way representative.

Do you seriously have the audacity to argue with me on this point?  After my last post in this thread, I was sure you'd back down and say, "You know what?  Good point.  That poll isn't really representative, so I can't use it as evidence to bolster my argument.  I'm going to find a poll that uses a better sample and report back."  No remotely rational person, especially a truther, should be so entirely unable to recognize your blatant logical error.  I'm utterly *shocked* by your complete lack of objectivity, particularly considering your haste in wrongfully accusing others of the same.

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> ARE YOU EVEN KIDDING ME?  Is this April fricking first?
> 
> You're attacking MY objectivity because I'm pointing out that the poll isn't in any way representative of the population, and therefore cannot be used to infer the mindset of Americans in general?  You're calling such an obviously biased poll "undeniable evidence?"  THAT is the sign of someone lacking in objectivity.  I won't even group you in with the rest of the truthers anymore, because I believe that any respectable truther would be insulted by the association.  In fact, I pray for their sake that you're not even a real truther, and that you're just some hack who's purposely trying to make them look as moronic as possible.
> 
> *To show you how absurd your logic is, consider what would happen if the MSM polled the members of the Bush administration today and asked them what they think about 9/11:*
> When 99% respond saying it was Al Qaeda (and odds are 100% would respond that way), would you really consider that sample to be representative of the US population as a whole?  If you consistently held that poll to the same weak standards that you hold the RPF poll, you'd have no choice but to answer "Yes."  However, that would completely contradict prior results obtained from the RPF poll - after all, 99% of Americans cannot believe Al Qaeda did 9/11 when the majority believe it was an inside job (unless people are so fickle that the majority of Americans did a total 180 on this in the last week and a half).
> 
> The point here is that NEITHER poll can accurately reflect the mindset of Americans as a whole, because NEITHER poll is in any way representative.
> 
> Do you seriously have the audacity to argue with me on this point?  After my last post in this thread, I was sure you'd back down and say, "You know what?  Good point.  That poll isn't really representative, so I can't use it as evidence to bolster my argument.  I'm going to find a poll that uses a better sample and report back."  No remotely rational person, especially a truther, should be so entirely unable to recognize your blatant logical error.  I'm utterly *shocked* by your complete lack of objectivity, particularly considering your haste in wrongfully accusing others of the same.


 Here is the poll


 Man what are you talking about? I never claimed that this poll represents the ENTIRE population. All what I am saying is that this poll (plus all previous polls) is a clear sign that the majority of Ron Paul supporters are Truthers whether you like it or not. We have over 70% of 112 voters believe that 9/11 crimes were connected some how to the government.

But then you come to me with such obscured argument and talk about the entire population.

----------


## LibertyEagle

V4RonPaul:

That is a little bitty poll, that sampled a very small subset of Ron's supporters.  It proves NOTHING.

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> V4RonPaul:
> 
> That is a little bitty poll, that sampled a very small subset of Ron's supporters.  It proves NOTHING.


Let me say it plain and simple. You cannot prove the opposite in a similar conditions. Bring me another poll with a very small subset of Ron's supporters that contradicts our poll. Unfortunately I do not think you will be able to do so.

Second: I did not put this poll in Hot Topics but you probably did and if you truly want a bigger sample, its all in your hand. But even in the Hot Topics it generated 112 voters and that is a pretty good number to show what Ron Paul supporters tend mostly to believe, where over 70% show the possibility of government involvement.

Third: Should I understand from your argument that you do not believe in national polls, just because it a small percentage of the entire population?

And here is another proof that this sample is legitimate. Here is another poll "Who will you be voting for in November?" This poll consisted of 100 people where the majority of them voted  Bob Barr/Wayne A. Root (Libertarian Party). Is this sample is deceiving? No it is not. We all know that alot of Ron Paul supporters tend to vote for Barr and even the NewYork Times knows it. 

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=152266

----------


## Mini-Me

> Here is the poll
> 
> 
>  Man what are you talking about? I never claimed that this poll represents the ENTIRE population. All what I am saying is that this poll (plus all previous polls) is a clear sign that the majority of Ron Paul supporters are Truthers whether you like it or not. We have over 70% of 112 voters believe that 9/11 crimes were connected some how to the government.
> 
> But then you come to me with such obscured argument and talk about the entire population.


PHEW.  Okay, phew.  I seriously thought you were referring to the entire population, because I foolishly read "That is simply not true, truthers are not minority but the majority" while forgetting about the context in which you said it (in response to the previous post, where someone mentioned that the "minority" of truther Paul supporters hurt Paul's reputation).  That's my mistake, and I'm sorry for my harsh tone in the previous post.  I really was missing something important, and that changes my entire way of thinking about your post linking to the poll.

Nevertheless, LibertyEagle is still right to point out that the poll is still not necessarily representative of Ron Paul supporters, or even those posting on this site.  There are several reasons:
The vast majority of Ron Paul supporters never posted on this site, and the small number of poll respondents is just far too inadequate to form a representative sample.Even when Ron Paul's campaign was in full swing, the Ron Paul supporters who posted on this site may not have been representative of the average supporter for demographic reasons or because of other hidden variables (i.e. certain kinds of people are more likely than others to get involved in online message boards).  It's quite possible that truthers were more strongly represented on forums than in the general base of supporters.Even if neither of the previous statements were true, the posters today represent the people who did not forget about the Paul campaign and turn off their brains/hearts after it became hopeless.  In general, the people left today are more likely to be really dedicated, really philosophically interested, or really desperate...which could easily mean that there's a higher proportion of truthers among us today than ever before, making this forum even less representative of the original Ron Paul support base.Finally, the poll is in Hot Topics, which is pretty much where the truthers go to hang out, and many non-truther posters don't really spend much time there.  That makes it more likely for the average truther to respond to the poll than the average non-truther.

----------


## NewFederalist

Truther or not, Jesse Ventura is just an opportunist. He is all about the book deals. Now Gary Johnson is a very different matter.

----------


## jyakulis

> *Can you seriously say with a straight face that we at RPF are actually a representative sample of the entire US population?*


he didn't even say that. he said a majority of ron paul supporters

----------


## pacelli

> *Can you seriously say with a straight face that we at RPF are actually a representative sample of the entire US population?*  If we were, Ron Paul would have easily won the Republican primary!  Seriously, do you not even see the problems with your methodology?


There is no way in hades that any poll conducted on this website is representative of the entire US population. One of the most important steps to obtaining a representative sample is a methodology called random selection. RPF is a self-selected forum.  It is definitely not a random selection process.

----------


## pacelli

> he didn't even say that. he said a majority of ron paul supporters


There is also no way in hades that responses generated on RPF is representative of the majority of Ron Paul supporters.

----------


## rbu

Jesse will run in 2012 and will have a much bigger impact than Dr. Paul. He has a presence and people listen to what he has to say whether they agree with what is said or not. I wish the good Dr. had such but unfortunately it's just not his style. 

Dr. Paul started the revolution and Ventura will finish it.

----------


## Mini-Me

> he didn't even say that. he said a majority of ron paul supporters


Yeah, I know that now...I totally misinterpreted what he said.

----------


## Feenix566

> 4 years from now the truth movement will become a massive force. Do not underestimate that.


This forum needs a "laughing" smiley.

----------


## richardfortherepublic

> This forum needs a "laughing" smiley.


Agreed, it almost seems like 9/11 truthers know nothing of how an average American thinks or goes about their lives.

----------


## dannno

> and the association of just the small minority of Paul supporters being truthers





Most of the hardworking supporters I met who actually wanted to go out and make a difference were truthers.

For you to say "small minority" I will need some evidence.

----------


## H Roark

After reading that Tucker peaced out because Ventura got truthery, I thought for sure when I saw the video clip that Ventura must of mentioned flat out that 9/11 was an inside job.  Boy was I wrong, you guys are really being too sensitive about this.

Ventura just alluded to the incompatibilities between the FBI not charging Osama Bin Laden and our response as a nation to the tear-wrists that caused 9/11.  He used the governments own information against itself!  I'm not a truther, but how is that out of line!?  Ventura just touched on the subject, he could of been more direct but he wasn't despite the chants nearby egging him on...

----------


## fj45lvr

All jesse stated was that he had questions about what happened that day and what the gov. has done afterwards....

I hardly call that "truther" if "truther" means you believe that the events were an "inside job".

I agree with Paul and others that there should have been much more thorough investigation into what happened that day (discovering the "truth")..... I think all of us can agree that the gov's "official line" on MANY things is a FACADE for "ass-covering" and self-perpetuation.

----------


## freelance

Can someone move these control freaks to Hot Topics?

----------


## lucius

> Why aren't we allowed to question the "mainstream" conspiracy theory of 9/11?


Broken humans make ideal employees/citizens/civilians/serfs. Our public education is designed for this task, reinforced constantly through our media. Fear driven, destroys critical thinking, installs a group mindset, tolerates little deviation, desperate to belong becomes the subconscious norm, self-censers through denigration--this book describes part of the process well, 'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism' (ISBN: 0807842532):



How's this for a 1961 definition for 'truther' from 'Loading the Language':




> The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis...in Lionel Trilling's phrase, "the language of nonthought." _It's freaken Orwellian._


ps: you're a life-saver with the fast utubes--many thanks!

"Nowadays we suffer from some fundamental perversion whereby we hold in reverence the very boot that grinds our faces into the pavement."~Spirit of '73

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> PHEW.  Okay, phew.  I seriously thought you were referring to the entire population, because I foolishly read "That is simply not true, truthers are not minority but the majority" while forgetting about the context in which you said it (in response to the previous post, where someone mentioned that the "minority" of truther Paul supporters hurt Paul's reputation).  That's my mistake, and I'm sorry for my harsh tone in the previous post.  I really was missing something important, and that changes my entire way of thinking about your post linking to the poll.


Thanks for stating that.




> Nevertheless, LibertyEagle is still right to point out that the poll is still not necessarily representative of Ron Paul supporters, or even those posting on this site.


LibertyEagle did not even say that. He meant to discredit the poll by saying literally: It proves NOTHING. Which is totally untrue!




> There are several reasons:
> The vast majority of Ron Paul supporters never posted on this site, and the small number of poll respondents is just far too inadequate to form a representative sample.Even when Ron Paul's campaign was in full swing, the Ron Paul supporters who posted on this site may not have been representative of the average supporter for demographic reasons or because of other hidden variables (i.e. certain kinds of people are more likely than others to get involved in online message boards).  It's quite possible that truthers were more strongly represented on forums than in the general base of supporters.Even if neither of the previous statements were true, the posters today represent the people who did not forget about the Paul campaign and turn off their brains/hearts after it became hopeless.  In general, the people left today are more likely to be really dedicated, really philosophically interested, or really desperate..*.which could easily mean that there's a higher proportion of truthers among us today than ever before, making this forum even less representative of the original Ron Paul support base*.Finally, *the poll is in Hot Topics*, *which is pretty much where the truthers go to hang out*, and *many non-truther posters don't really spend much time there*.  *That makes it more likely for the average truther to respond to the poll than the average non-truther*.


Let me first start by saying that Truthers have always been a high portion among us. And I got to disagree with you a little bit here because I believe that the number of truthers now is less than it was before and that is due to the fascist policies which were applied here by banning  any 9/11 discussions from the public view. Simply they got sick of it and alot left.

Second: You are true that truthers hang alot in Hot Topics and that might be because they are the smartest and most awakened people among Ron Paul supporters. I agree that this might affected the poll some how.

But even if we were led to believe that this affected the poll. Let us do a simple math here:
 

We have 30% out of 113 voters are hardcore truthers.
Let us assume that we will ignore them and delete their votes for a second. We will find that even with taking the hardcore truthers out of the poll,  the non hardcore truthers are still the majority even after this big cut. 
79 people remain and out of the 79 only 20 people believe in the official story as it was told.

For me that is a clear sign that the majority of Ron Paul supporters are truthers even if a portion of them are not hardcore ones.

Another suggestion: It is in the hands of the moderators to start a more wide poll. I am not asking for this poll to be public, keep it secret, leave it in the Hot Topics and send a message to all the members of RPF inviting them to the Hot Topics to cast their votes. It is that simple, only if the moderators are truly serious about the outcome. But I think alot of them are afraid of the results and therefore I do not think this poll will be conducted.

It is really saddening me that I doubt in conducting such an honest poll in such a place that supposes to be a liberty forest. How come things are getting worse even inside here at home before we even start the revolution.? This situation reminds me of dealing with the government in order to conduct an independent investigation (poll) and they refuse to do so. Its automatically translated into a cover up. And in our case the cover up would be about the fact that turthers are the majority of Ron Paul supporters.  What kind of revolution this would be if we do not fight fascism from within.

----------


## richardfortherepublic

Saying the majority of 1.1 million registered Republicans are 'truthers' is an outrageous claim... You don't speak for the majority, and you sure as hell don't speak for me.


I'm cutting my ties with the truth movement.

----------


## Zera

STOP SAYING PAUL SUPPORTERS ARE TRUTHERS!

Seriously, stop it!  The whole god damn stupid movement is a large reason why Paul supporters are considered KOOKS AND LOONIES!  Every time I see someone address a Paul supporter on websites like Digg or something, they always reference them as truthers and loonies and whatnot... I always said that it was just a small minority of idiots who don't realize that their big mouthes are making all of us look like idiots.  But you going around and saying we are mostly truthers is just making us look bad!  It's people like you guys that will never allow this movement to lift off into the mainsteam... You have a very skewed idea of how the mainsteam thinks.  They are not turned on by conspiracy theorists AT ALL and will simply ridicule you and write you off.

Seriously, if you guys really want to get this campaign off it's feet into the public's eye, you'll need to leave your truther crap at home and act normal.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Let me first start by saying that Truthers have always been a high portion among us. And I got to disagree with you a little bit here because I believe that the number of truthers now is less than it was before and that is due to the fascist policies which were applied here by banning  any 9/11 discussions from the public view. Simply they got sick of it and alot left.


This is quite possible as well.  It's just another variable clouding the true proportion of truthers at the time the campaign was in full swing, however (which is really what this is about, given that you posted the poll in response to Zera saying a "small minority" of truthers hurt Paul's campaign).




> Second: You are true that truthers hang alot in Hot Topics and that might be because they are the smartest and most awakened people among Ron Paul supporters. I agree that this might affected the poll some how.


Given my own rudeness a few posts ago, I guess I have no choice but to let your apparent haughtiness here slide... 




> But even if we were led to believe that this affected the poll. Let us do a simple math here:
>  
> 
> We have 30% out of 113 voters are hardcore truthers.
> Let us assume that we will ignore them and delete their votes for a second. We will find that even with taking the hardcore truthers out of the poll,  the non hardcore truthers are still the majority even after this big cut. 
> 79 people remain and out of the 79 only 20 people believe in the official story as it was told.
> 
> For me that is a clear sign that the majority of Ron Paul supporters are truthers even if a portion of them are not hardcore ones.


You make a good point here, but I think you're forgetting something...
Interestingly, someone in that thread did mention that they were afraid of voting, "It may have been an inside job, but I'm not sure," because they were afraid it was a trap...in other words, they were afraid of being counted as a truther.

I think part of the problem here is that truthers have a very different definition of terms from the general public, especially regarding the following two terms:
One is *"inside job:"*  When truthers say "inside job," they mean that at least one government agent was involved in letting or making it happen.  Some believe a lot more were involved, but most sensible truthers are referring to a group of well-placed clandestine individuals who adhere to a parallel chain of command entirely separate from the official government heirarchy (e.g. their treasonous plans and orders are typically not put on paper and passed around the office).  

Now, when the general public hears "inside job," they hear something entirely different.  They hear, "Pretty much the entire government is guilty from the top down.  Bush and his pals orchestrated it, and everyone in the entire chain of command knows about it, from the big bad at the top to the lowliest mook at the bottom."  Obviously, this is preposterous - nobody would ever be able to get away with something like that.  Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld can't just hold an ordinary office meeting and say, "Hey guys, I have a great idea - let's um...let's blow up the twin towers next month, because it will further our agenda."  I don't know of a single truther who has ever actually proposed any such hypothesis, but the average American has nevertheless been conditioned to think that this is exactly what "inside job" means...so the moment they hear the phrase, they just shut down and start ignoring whoever said it.The other contentious term is *"truther."*  Hardcore truthers have a very inclusive definition of this word, and they count those who those who just want a proper investigation or who have suspicions that the official story is a coverup or an outright devious lie...whereas those who have such suspicions are usually pretty adamant that they do not wish to be considered "truthers." 

Why is this?  It's because, once again, the average American has been conditioned to react extremely negatively to the word "truther."  The average American thinks, "Total looney who believes in the most outlandish possible conspiracy theories."
The word "truther" was purposely ruined by the media, but "inside job" became corrupted entirely on its own, because it's just such a poorly chosen and imprecise word that naturally carries often-unintended connotations.  In both cases though, these words cannot be reclaimed.  In the eyes of the average American, they will never again elicit a positive response - or at least not until something drastically changes.

Bill Cosby was on the Oprah show recently, and he talked about how black youths and rappers are constantly trying to reclaim the word "******" and turn it into something positive.  He said that this cannot be done though, because it's had such a long history of being a hurtful word, and even though people are using the term as a term of endearment for friends during the daytime, some of the same people are using it when they're gunning each other down at night.  Because the word has such deeply negative connotations and those negative connotations keep being reinforced, it simply cannot be successfully reclaimed.

To a large degree, I think I agree with him.  Likewise, terms like "truther" and "inside job" are similar in that they have very negative connotations that are constantly being reinforced...and they cannot be reclaimed.  No matter how much you want to bring the word "truther" back to its original, more inclusive denotative meaning in order to show how many people have the slightest suspicion about the official story, the media has already rigged the language against you.  Moderately suspicious people do not want to be called truthers, because they know that the general public immediately associates the word with the craziest and most hardcore members of your movement.  The word "truther" has become synonymous with the word "nutjob" in American culture.  By labeling Paul supporters as truthers against their will, you're attaching all of these negative connotations to them, and you're hurting their credibility in the eyes of ordinary people who immediately shrink back in conditioned fear or disgust at the term.  When their priority is persuading the public about liberty and political issues rather than about 9/11, is it really hard to understand why they don't appreciate this association?  When you say, "most Ron Paul supporters are truthers," the average American hears, "most Ron Paul supporters are nutjobs who believe [insert most far-fetched ever conspiracy theory here]."  Because most Ron Paul supporters do not have beliefs remotely similar to what people imagine when they hear "truther," they resent being labeled as such, and rightly so.

By the standards of most truthers, Ron Paul himself is a truther - after all, he wants a new investigation.  He cares about the truth.  However, he himself would not appreciate being called a truther, and in fact he had to distance himself from the term in the election season, precisely because the general public will misunderstand and confuse him for one of the really hardcore truthers...and the connotations associated with this word really did hurt his appeal among the mainstream, Fox-fed America.

If you want to really accurately convey the feeling of Ron Paul supporters on this forum (and we're still not representative of Paul supporters in general), you'd be better off saying that most Ron Paul supporters have some suspicions about the official 9/11 story.  Going by the strict denotative definition truthers prefer for their namesake label, this isn't much different from saying most Ron Paul supporters are truthers...but in terms of connotations and what the average person *hears*, it makes a world of difference.

Language matters.  It may suck, and it may be unfair, but it matters. 




> Another suggestion: It is in the hands of the moderators to start a more wide poll. I am not asking for this poll to be public, keep it secret, leave it in the Hot Topics and send a message to all the members of RPF inviting them to the Hot Topics to cast their votes. It is that simple, only if the moderators are truly serious about the outcome. But I think alot of them are afraid of the results and therefore I do not think this poll will be conducted.
> 
> It is really saddening me that I doubt in conducting such an honest poll in such a place that supposes to be a liberty forest. How come things are getting worse even inside here at home before we even start the revolution.? This situation reminds me of dealing with the government in order to conduct an independent investigation (poll) and they refuse to do so. Its automatically translated into a cover up. And in our case the cover up would be about the fact that turthers are the majority of Ron Paul supporters.  What kind of revolution this would be if we do not fight fascism from within.


Polls regarding 9/11 are very off topic in this forum, and when it comes down to it, I don't think the moderators even care enough to go through the trouble of pointing such a poll out to every poster.  In any case, I would still contend that the posters on this forum are in no way representative of the average Ron Paul supporter (*especially* if you count the casual supporters who are still voting for McCain or Obama now that Paul lost his primary bid...idiots ).

That said, you could be right:  The moderators could be afraid that the results would be very favorable to your argument...and the danger there is that it runs the risk of you portraying the results in an entirely misleading way to outsiders.  To understand what I'm talking about, relate your comments about most Paul supporters being "truthers" to my comments above about the vastly different definitions people have for the word.  The purpose of the Paul campaign, the CFL, and this forum is and was to promote/discuss Paul's message and affect major political change...and to that end, association with the word "truther" can be very counterproductive, not to mention extremely misleading (based on the wide chasm between common interpretations of the word and the real beliefs of the average Paul supporter).  In the eyes of the average American, that kind of association will damage our perceived credibility on other issues that we're very fundamentally sound on and sure about, e.g. economics, monetary policy, foreign policy, stopping the police state, etc.  Given the purpose of this forum, it shouldn't be surprising at all that moderators would not want to go out of their way to help you brand us as truthers.  After all, that would only give the average American yet another superficial reason to disregard or ridicule Paul's already uncomfortable message.  *Time is slipping away, and we simply cannot afford to be ignored based on involuntary associations.*

There are very good reasons why so many of us distance ourselves from the term "truther," and I really think you should respect our wishes.  Keep the 9/11 truth movement separate...please.

----------


## richardfortherepublic

If you are a truther, be a truther...but don't assosiate yourself to Ron Paul!!!! 

Don't wear your 9/11 gear to rally's. Don't carry a sign that says '9/11 was an inside job... vote for Ron Paul' 

You are ruining it! YOU HAVE YOUR OWN MOVEMENT! DON'T RIDE OUR COAT TAILS!

----------


## Malakai

Please everyone, adopt Ron Paul's 9/11 policy. There is NOTHING WRONG with questioning government reports/investigations. And even Beck admitted that the questions Jesse asked about 9/11 were perfectly valid and not even remotely "crazy".

Calm down a lot of us are big fans of the guy. He's big funny and says what he really thinks every time =)

And you have to admit, underwater demolitions expert/navy seal, pro-wrestler, and governor; interesting resume!

----------


## Mini-Me

> Please everyone, adopt Ron Paul's 9/11 policy. There is NOTHING WRONG with questioning government reports/investigations. And even Beck admitted that the questions Jesse asked about 9/11 were perfectly valid and not even remotely "crazy".
> 
> Calm down a lot of us are big fans of the guy. He's big funny and says what he really thinks every time =)
> 
> And you have to admit, underwater demolitions expert/navy seal, pro-wrestler, and governor; interesting resume!


For the record, I also see no problem with what Ventura specifically said, either...and in any case, he only presumes to speak for himself anyway.

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> But you going around and saying we are mostly truthers is just making us look bad!  It's people like you guys that will never allow this movement to lift off into the mainsteam... You have a very skewed idea of how the mainsteam thinks.  They are not turned on by conspiracy theorists AT ALL and will simply ridicule you and write you off...............


Oh yes.

Sacrifice your principles, sell your morals for cheap and share in the cover up in order to have access into the main stream media. 

Sorry sir, if you allow yourself to do so, do so but do not ask me to share with you in such a cheap deal.

We Will Never Forget!

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> Saying the majority of 1.1 million registered Republicans are 'truthers' is an outrageous claim...


Well, unless you prove the opposite (which I am sure you will not) they will remain the majority whether you like it or not!

But there are some factors related to the 1.1 million registered Republicans which I have to mention:

1-Not all the one million registered voters are dedicated Ron Paul supporters.

2-Not all the one million registered voters are aware of any 9/11 hypotheses other than the official one, which means that a portion of them are not aware of the hypothesis that explosive brought down the towers and not fire.

3-The number of truthers among Ron Paul supporters should be counted from the number of those registered Republicans who voted Ron Paul and are aware of both hypotheses.

I myself was one of those who were not aware of other hypothesis until I did and that was it for me and since then I considered myself part of the truth movement and I am honored to do so although I never carried a sign and never chanted in the streets that 9/11 is an inside. But simply I refused to sell myself for cheap and share in the cover up.

When you think about the bones fragments of the victims which were discovered under the buildings and on the top of the roofs and this still does not move your senses to stand up and fight and seek the truth about what really happened that day, you got to think twice before you step another step and ask yourself who you actually are all about as a human being?

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

He ended his chance for me when he said he was going to go surf in Mexico and that was his main concern to surf with some champion ...that guy is TOOOO full of himself.  I wont support him.  No way.  Tones

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> Interestingly, someone in that thread did mention that they were afraid of voting, "It may have been an inside job, but I'm not sure," because they were afraid it was a trap...in other words, they were afraid of being counted as a truther.


That is actually very interesting and I did not even notice that. But I consider this is also a sign that truthers are the majority. So now we can easily say say that there are a number of truthers among those who refused to share in the poll. And this would lead us to the probability that truthers might be the majority among those who refused to share.




> ...........................
> There are very good reasons why so many of us distance ourselves from the term "truther," and I really think you should respect our wishes.  Keep the 9/11 truth movement separate...please.


I understand what your argument is about . But not only you are asking me to stop using the term truther but you are also asking me to keep the 9/11 truth movement separate. Brother that is two in one. If I will accept your request about the term truther due to your illustration,  I will definitely reject the second one. 




> Why is this? It's because, once again, the average American has been conditioned to react extremely negatively to the word "truther."


I got to disagree with you here.

You actually giving the term truther a popularity more than it actually holds. 
The fact is that the average American does not know what the term "truther" is about. Go stop 10 people in Walmart and recite on them the term "truther" I bet that at least 9 of them won't know what the hell you are talking about 

Actually the mainstream media succeeded in its mission with you and with people who think the way you do and not with the average American. The MSM succeeded in penetrating a portion of the people who understand that the term "truther" holds behind it a truth.

Regardless the term, the message which stands behind it is the most important!
And as I said it before you do not have to announce yourself as a truther or as a part of the truth movement in order to be one.

----------


## AutoDas

It's definitely not because a loose contingent of crazies have bullhorns while the moderately rational Ron Paul supporters just have a sign out showing their support and not trying to push their personal agenda.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> He ended his chance for me when he said he was going to go surf in Mexico and that was his main concern to surf with some champion ...that guy is TOOOO full of himself.  I wont support him.  No way.  Tones


He's full of himself, yes.  He's arrogant, yes.  His point about surfing with Laird hamilton was pretty selfish but hear me out.

Jesse enjoys his life.  He has alot to brag about, and unlike most "braggers" he doesnt make up bull$#@!.  When he boasts, he boasts about things he's actually done and accomplished.

It's arrogant and selfish i agree but, this was a guy who played an arrogant, selfish badass on TV for years.  He's never truly left his Wrestling personality behind.  He's emphasizing that all he cares about is surfing with a pro, because he likes the challenge. 

Jesse ventura has already served his country in more ways than one.  He fought in the Vietnam war, Became mayor, and then governed an entire state with a pretty decent approval rating.  Does he not have the right to be a bit arrogant?   I'm willing to bet his record trumps nearly everyone in this forums' record.


All in all, i think his arrogance would be AWESOME in a debate against any neo-con or neo-lib.  

If Ventura runs in 2012, and appears to have a glimmer of a chance, you'll support him Tones, i know it .

Ventura, while flawed, is 1776 times better than anything else you'll likely be offered in '12. 

Him and Johnson together would be a deadly blow to the establishment.

----------


## richardfortherepublic

> For the record, I also see no problem with what Ventura specifically said, either...and in any case, he only presumes to speak for himself anyway.


Here, here.

I am just mad about this $#@!ing nut job saying the majority of Paul supporters are 'truthers'. This is far from the *truth*..

Sure we may question aspects of the attacks, but to throw us in the same boat as Alex Jones, and the loose change people, is quite annoying.
*
If you go around telling people, that the majority of Paul supporters are 'truthers', because a message board poll of a couple dozen people say they question the official story, You are no friend of mine. Its not your job to say what/who the MAJORITY of Paul supporters believe in. No one died and made you Ron Paul.*

----------


## rightwinghour

> For god's sake, it's not questioning 9/11 that ruins his chances, it's simply the way he looks, dresses and acts. America is very superficial.


I was kinda thinking he needs to shave his head again.  He looks better that way.

----------


## Zera

> Oh yes.
> 
> Sacrifice your principles, sell your morals for cheap and share in the cover up in order to have access into the main stream media. 
> 
> Sorry sir, if you allow yourself to do so, do so but do not ask me to share with you in such a cheap deal.
> 
> We Will Never Forget!


Not once did I mention media.  I said that to get into the mainsteam, which would mean getting into the public's eye.  

Also, please don't associate yourself as a Paul supporter and a truther when you talk to people.  Do it for the normal Paul supporter's sake.

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> Here, here.
> 
> I am just mad about this [*DELETED*] saying the majority of Paul supporters are 'truthers'. This is far from the *truth*..
> .........................


You idiot, if you cannot hold yourself and maintain a civil discussion then get out of here. Not because you are losing a debate and cannot back your position, you trash people. Advice, put your brain to work instead of your nasty mouth!

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> Not once did I mention media.  I said that to get into the mainsteam, which would mean getting into the public's eye.


Thank you for correcting me here. That was my mistake mainsteam/mainstream look the same 




> Also, please don't associate yourself as a Paul supporter and a truther when you talk to people.  Do it for the normal Paul supporter's sake.


Who said that I do man? I think this discussion has ended months ago since the FOX debate and since then I do not think anybody in the truth movement does so.

All the discussion that started was about something different. It was about the number of truth seekers among Ron Paul supporters. You said minority and I say majority. 

But maybe I would agree with the term "minority" in one case and it is that those of the 9/11 truth seekers who associate Ron Paul with 9/11 stuff is the minority while the majority stopped doing so since long time ago.

----------


## richardfortherepublic

> You idiot, if you cannot hold yourself and maintain a civil discussion then get out of here. Not because you are losing a debate and cannot back your position, you trash people. Advice, put your brain to work instead of your nasty mouth!


I'd recommend you put your brain to work and stop saying the majority of us are truthers.

I am pissed because I don't want to be associated with you people no more.

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> I'd recommend you put your brain to work and stop saying the majority of us are truthers.


I put my brain to work already and I have done some thinking while since you came to the thread you kept saying the same thing over and over again. Okay, I tell you what, I do not care how many times you say it! But when you say it say it with civility. There is no legitimate reason for trashing people who do not agree with you.




> I am pissed because I don't want to be associated with you people no more.


Okay man, no one is forcing you to be associated with us, if we are the majority then consider yourself of the minority and live with it.

----------


## Drknows

I agree with the OP. Ventura blew it big time.

There is no way in hell he can win after making what is consider fringe  comments.

Ron Paul could have won if he was more moderate in speaking and charismatic. Ron Paul had everything right. But lacked the appeal of being able to lead.

To go from Ron Paul to Ventura would be a huge step back for us in creditability. 


A lot of you guys miss the big picture just like the far left do. America is made up of mostly moderate thinking Christians who have great love for this country.

Why do you think Obama is running to the center on every issue? Why do you think he denounced his church? 

Why Do you think Mccain is trying to appeal to his base and please the center?

We need someone like ron paul who can better articulate the ideas and appeal to the center at the same time. being extremly strong on national defense and caring for the less fortunate. You cant have someone who is trying to rally a small group of people. 

I'm sorry its true.

----------


## RickyJ

> He did so when he made it pretty apparent that he is a truther on TV.  This would be brought up instantly... Do you see that running very smoothly at all?  We still have time to pick someone, let's not just rush into something just because he's all we know as of the very moment.


For that very reason I would vote for him over Ron Paul. Ventura can win a fair election, no doubt about it.

----------


## Drknows

> 4 years from now the truth movement will become a massive force. Do not underestimate that.


4 years from now it will be as popular as the Moon Landing movement.

----------


## Drknows

> For that very reason I would vote for him over Ron Paul. Ventura can win a fair election, no doubt about it.


I guarantee you he would have lost Minnesota if he made those comments before running for governor.

----------


## RickyJ

> They are when people will see you as a lunatic when you ask them.  You can never question something as touchy as 9/11 when running for the highest office in the country.  Sorry, but it's just true.



You do this cause no good. If you can't question authority than you are a mind numb sheeple.

----------


## Mach

> For god's sake, it's not questioning 9/11 that ruins his chances, it's simply the way he looks, dresses and acts. America is very superficial.


What a very superficial observation.

----------


## VoteForRonPaul

> If you can't question authority then you are a mind numb sheeple.


This sentence should be added to the constitution!

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I am pissed because I don't want to be associated with you people no more.


Im just here to point out how some of us are more concentrated on dividing us than growing the movement.

Invite everyone in!  We need truthers, NWO conspiracy nuts, Liberals, conservatives, Anarchists.... Disagree all you want, but we need these people in our movement.

----------


## RickyJ

> I am pissed because I don't want to be associated with you people no more.


Well then leave. Nothing is stopping you.

----------


## rbu

> Invite everyone in!  We need truthers, NWO conspiracy nuts, Liberals, conservatives, Anarchists.... Disagree all you want, but we need these people in our movement.


Finally, a man with some intelligence. I salute you, sir!

----------

