Tucker Carlson & Truthers

[jmdrake]

That would be at a 9/11 rally, or some other event associated with the truther movement, or on your own -- not in a situation when you know your beliefs will be falsely assigned to the liberty movement.

Look, I'm not a "truther", but I do agree with a full investigation. I also disbelieve the "official" story on evolution. Would I stand up at a CFL rally with signs saying, "evolution is a hoax, study the science for yourself?" No! Because that is not the purpose of the CFL and I would be hijacking the movement for my own purposes. I will attend debates or discuss science regarding macro evolution on my own time. Who cares if the campaign is over? The movement is as important as ever. I am proud to have truthers among us, who will work hard along side me for liberty, and use their freedom with discretion. I wish those who are not able to use their freedom of speech with discretion, and cannot restrain themselves from harming a movement that serves their own interests and purposes, would just leave (or preferably join the former group).

The difference is:

1) The evolution debate has little to do with our current state of affairs. 9/11 does. For example Giuliani chided the democrats for "not mentioning 9/11 enough".

2) A well known 9/11 skeptic (Ventura) was asked to speak and touched on the subject.

3) The CFL rally was first announced on a 9/11 truther show. (Who's hijacking who?)

If you want a better "scientific analogy" think "global warming". Like 9/11 it has a VERY REAL possibility of causing a TREMENDOUS growth in government and proportional loss of freedom. Say if John Coleman (founder of the weather channel who called global warming "the greatest scam in history") had been asked to speak? If those of us who believe Al Gore has been taking this country for a ride with his "inconvenient mistruths" cheered him on when he touched on the subject would we be "hijacking the movement"? I think not. You may and you're entitled to your opinion. Ron Paul took a calculated risk inviting Ventura to speak an promoting the rally as he did. Nobody should be surprised at the results.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Jaykzo]

1)
4) Considering the fact that Ron Paul received over TWICE the votes in 2008 with truther support than he did in 1988 without it, how can you honestly claim that truthers are "destroying the movement"?

How could he have possibly gained the support of the truther movement in 1988 when 9/11 didn't happen till 2001? Thats a terrible point you're trying to make there, and there is a lot of logic lacking in asking such a question.

 

[tremendoustie]

The Script Howard poll suggests 30% of Americans are truthers. Unless you think truthers are statistically LESS likely to support Dr. Paul than the general population (despite all of Dr. Paul's efforts to reach out to truthers on the Alex Jones show) your assertion makes absolutely ZERO sense. I suspect you've reached this ridiculously low number because most truthers have followed the unwritten "Don't go running around talking about 9/11 while campaigning for Dr. Paul" rule. It's a catch 22. If truthers make their voices heard it's condemned as "hijacking the campaign". If they don't people (purposefully?) underestimate their numbers.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Make your numbers known -- go for it! Just don't do it within the CFL. Go to CFL rally in the morning, wear a "Liberty" hat and hold "Freedom now" signs. Then, in the afternoon, go across town to a 9/11 rally, wear a "truth now" hat and hold a "9/11 was an inside job" sign. It's not rocket science. If your numbers are there you will be able to do it outside of the CFL, and in any case, you will not be harming a movement that is your and all of our best chance for real liberty in the near future.

 

[yaz]

I heard there was some kind of altercation between the asshole truthers and Tucker Carlson. They supposedly scared him off & he stopped being MC. What exactly happened?? I also heard the truthers were chanting "911 was an inside job" during the Ventura speech. Why wont the truthers just go away or shut the hell up? It seems they use this movement of small government, free markets & anti-war and turned it into a conspiracy theory camp. It really angers me that they are destroying the movement.

I agree.

 

[tremendoustie]

The difference is:

1) The evolution debate has little to do with our current state of affairs. 9/11 does. For example Giuliani chided the democrats for "not mentioning 9/11 enough".

2) A well known 9/11 skeptic (Ventura) was asked to speak and touched on the subject.

3) The CFL rally was first announced on a 9/11 truther show. (Who's hijacking who?)

If you want a better "scientific analogy" think "global warming". Like 9/11 it has a VERY REAL possibility of causing a TREMENDOUS growth in government and proportional loss of freedom. Say if John Coleman (founder of the weather channel who called global warming "the greatest scam in history") had been asked to speak? If those of us who believe Al Gore has been taking this country for a ride with his "inconvenient mistruths" cheered him on when he touched on the subject would we be "hijacking the movement"? I think not. You may and you're entitled to your opinion. Ron Paul took a calculated risk inviting Ventura to speak an promoting the rally as he did. Nobody should be surprised at the results.

Regards,

John M. Drake

Fine, take "global warming" -- I don't believe it is man made. Yet, if Paul has not adopted a stance on global warming and incorporated it as a plank in the CFL, I will not use CFL events to hold signs stating, "global climate change is caused by the sun and not people". I will promote these ideas in my own spheres of influence and at events separate from the CFL. This way, those who believe global warming is manmade will not erroneously assign my views to the CFL, and I will not harm what I consider to be a very important movement.

To some extent, yes, inviting Ventura (and not asking him to stay off the subject) was asking for it. I'm just saying, in all events and efforts associated with the CFL, let's stick to promoting the core issues of the CFL -- namely, a return to consitutional government and the restoration of liberty. These are big enough pills for most to swallow -- we don't need to make it harder for people than it already is. What's more, the widespread acceptance of these views is your best shot at '9/11 truth' anyway!

 

[jmdrake]

How could he have possibly gained the support of the truther movement in 1988 when 9/11 didn't happen till 2001? Thats a terrible point you're trying to make there, and there is a lot of logic lacking in asking such a question.

9/11 hadn't happened in 1988? You don't say?

You're missing the point. If truthers were "destroying" Ron Paul's movement then his numbers should have gone DOWN in 2008 instead of UP! Logic must not be your strength.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

Fine, take "global warming" -- I don't believe it is man made. Yet, if Paul has not adopted a stance on global warming and incorporated it as a plank in the CFL, I will not use CFL events to hold signs stating, "global climate change is caused by the sun and not people". I will promote these ideas in my own spheres of influence and at events separate from the CFL. This way, those who believe global warming is manmade will not erroneously assign my views to the CFL, and I will not harm what I consider to be a very important movement.

Like I said. You're entitled to your opinion. But if Ron Paul had adopted a position against the Al Gore remedy to "global warming" (he has) while not (at least publicly) stating that "man made" global warming was a hoax, and then invited someone known for publicly questioning global warming to speak anyone who got upset because people cheered on that speaker when he questioned man made global warming at a rally wouldn't be thinking straight. (In my opinion of course).

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[jmdrake]

Make your numbers known -- go for it! Just don't do it within the CFL. Go to CFL rally in the morning, wear a "Liberty" hat and hold "Freedom now" signs. Then, in the afternoon, go across town to a 9/11 rally, wear a "truth now" hat and hold a "9/11 was an inside job" sign. It's not rocket science. If your numbers are there you will be able to do it outside of the CFL, and in any case, you will not be harming a movement that is your and all of our best chance for real liberty in the near future.

As I told the OP, if you don't like the fact that Ron Paul massively promoted this on a 9/11 truther radio show and then asked two prominent 9/11 truthers to speak then take it up with him. Because what happened at the rally is merely a result of those two actions. If you light a cigarette while pumping gasoline.....enough said.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[dannno]

Wow.

If anybody still has a problem with 'truthers' in this movement, then please re-read JM Drake's posts on this page. He just pwned a bunch of people.

 

[tremendoustie]

Like I said. You're entitled to your opinion. But if Ron Paul had adopted a position against the Al Gore remedy to "global warming" (he has) while not (at least publicly) stating that "man made" global warming was a hoax, and then invited someone known for publicly questioning global warming to speak anyone who got upset because people cheered on that speaker when he questioned man made global warming at a rally wouldn't be thinking straight. (In my opinion of course).

Regards,

John M. Drake

(see the remainder of my earlier post, which I subsequently edited -- sorry about that)

The purpose of inviting Ventura was not to discuss 9/11 truth -- I know this because Paul has repeatedly said that 9/11 truth is not his message, and indeed that he doesn't believe the government instigated 9/11. Those who disagree with Paul are welcome in the movement! But, they should not use the movement to promote these ideas.

The Ventura case is a little special, since he was an official speaker at a CFL event and he did bring up the subject -- my point is more general. We should do our best to keep the core CFL message clear to observers and the press, and refrain from associating controversial tangential issues with it. I am trying to convince those with strong views on controversial issues not core to the CFL message to refrain from using the CFL to promote those ideas.

I will promote freedom, liberty, and the consitution when associated with the CFL, and will leave evolution, and global warming out of it (I will promote these ideas in other venues). I hope those with other strong viewpoints, like 9/11 truth will realize the wisdom of using their freedom to do the same.

 

[jmdrake]

(see the remainder of my earlier post, which I subsequently edited -- sorry about that)

The purpose of inviting Ventura was not to discuss 9/11 truth.

I never said it was.

Again:

pumping gasoline + lighting cigarette = potential fire

Unveiling the CFL rally on A.J. + inviting Ventura to speak = potential 9/11 chants

You don't get mad at fires for doing what they do naturally. If you're really concerned you work to prevent the initial conditions.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[ClayTrainor]

i never said it was.

Again:

Pumping gasoline + lighting cigarette = potential fire

unveiling the cfl rally on a.j. + inviting ventura to speak = potential 9/11 chants

you don't get mad at fires for doing what they do naturally. If you're really concerned you work to prevent the initial conditions.

Regards,

john m. Drake

Owned!!!!

 

[tremendoustie]

I never said it was.

Again:

pumping gasoline + lighting cigarette = potential fire

Unveiling the CFL rally on A.J. + inviting Ventura to speak = potential 9/11 chants

You don't get mad at fires for doing what they do naturally. If you're really concerned you work to prevent the initial conditions.

Regards,

John M. Drake

I gotcha, and agree. If Paul's biggest concern was preventing the discussion of 9/11 truth, he should not have invited Ventura, or should have discussed his message with him prior to him speaking. As I noted in the earlier post, Ventura is a bit of a special case. I hope in general, though, we can agree to promote the principal ideas of the CFL, and to promote our own pet issues separately, especially when there is a danger of them hindering the movement.

Edit: I don't agree with your point regarding the announcement on AJ though -- Paul has stated that 9/11 truth is not his message, and has stated clearly that 9/11 truthers should tone it down if they want to act in his best interests. We do not need to look for 'clues', like radio appearances to know whether 9/11 truth is a major plank of the CFL -- it isn't.

Again, liberty and the constitution are big enough pills for most to swallow, the ones with which we all agree, and the major planks of the CFL. Let's start with that. The campaign is for Liberty. One can believe in 9/11 truth and not in liberty, and vice versa. It would be a shame to stunt the growth of this movement by stamping it with a highly controversial, tangential issue. Promote 9/11 truth, just not within CFL. You risk working against all of our interests. The fact is, there are many, many people who do not support 9/11 truth, who would support liberty and freedom, and ultimately a government that would be willing to investigate 9/11. If we throw them out now, we get nowhere. If we draw them in and make them feel comfortable, we get our liberty back, and you get an investigation (which I will support).

 

[KenInMontiMN]

I've no problem whatsoever with people demanding a real investigation for complicity and foreknowledge. That's just prudent skepticism of the gov't line in play, considering the numbers killed and lack of desire to investigate, on the part of the White House. If many survivors and families of victims want that, then there is certainly no excuse for not proceeding. I just don't know how useful such an investigation would be in terms of final resolution of the speculation of one kind or another. If thousands of people were aware of such complicity/foreknowledge, then certainly someone would have spilled the details by now. So if there was any such thing it was known within a very tightknit and select, trusting group.

If I were executive I wouldn't worry about statute of limitations and I'd go so far as to say I'd have no problem giving complete amnesty from prosecution as well if that were mine to give, if that's what it took to get the flow started. I'd just pull the families that wanted the investigation into a closed door meeting after granting that immunity, telling them that if we learned anything solidly damning on anyone protected by amnesty or statute of limitations, they'd be the first to know. Then I'd tell them that if anything bad happened to that protected individual, the families should consider the pardon for doing that something bad to be already written and signed, just waiting on a name to fill in as long as that name is in fact a survivor or a family member of someone who died that day.

 

[HaddEnuff]

Again, liberty and the constitution are big enough pills for most to swallow, the ones with which we all agree, and the major planks of the CFL. Let's start with that. The campaign is for Liberty. One can believe in 9/11 truth and not in liberty, and vice versa. It would be a shame to stunt the growth of this movement by stamping it with a highly controversial, tangential issue. Promote 9/11 truth, just not within CFL. You risk working against all of our interests. The fact is, there are many, many people who do not support 9/11 truth, who would support liberty and freedom, and ultimately a government that would be willing to investigate 9/11. If we throw them out now, we get nowhere. If we draw them in and make them feel comfortable, we get our liberty back, and you get an investigation (which I will support).

So I have a pad and paper handy. What else do we shut up about?
Federal Reserve? Very controversial. Most believe it's a government entity and should be left alone. Our stance has run off many people. Probably should shut up about it, right?
IRS? Very Very controversial. Most believe it is our duty to pay it. Our stance has run off many, many, many people. We should definitely SHUT UP about that one, right?
The New World Order? Off the controversy charts. FOR GOD'S SAKES, shut up about that one, right?
North American Union? See above.
Non-Interventionism? Seen as isolationism to most. Our stance has run off a butt load on this one. Better shut up, huh?
Patriot Act? Most believe it's for our own safety. Definitely Shut Up worthy, no?

Seriously, this is a campaign for LIBERTY.
Nothing has done more in our lifetime to threaten our liberties than the events that transpired after and because of 9/11.
IMHO getting to the truth about 9/11 is CRITICAL in preserving those liberties.









I'm HaddEnuff and I approve this message.

 

[tremendoustie]

So I have a pad and paper handy. What else do we shut up about?
Federal Reserve? Very controversial. Most believe it's a government entity and should be left alone. Our stance has run off many people. Probably should shut up about it, right?

Nope, it's a main CFL plank, and Paul talks about it at every speech. In order to have liberty we will need to end the Fed.

IRS? Very Very controversial. Most believe it is our duty to pay it. Our stance has run off many, many, many people. We should definitely SHUT UP about that one, right?

Nope, it's a main CFL plank, and Paul talks about it at every speech. In order to have liberty we will need to end the IRS.

The New World Order? Off the controversy charts. FOR GOD'S SAKES, shut up about that one, right?

Yep, Paul doesn't talk about the NWO, and believing there is a NWO planned is not necessary to implement Liberty in this country.

North American Union? See above.

Yep, probably does not need to be a major topic, Paul doesn't talk about it much, if we promote American sovereignty the problem will take care of itself. It is not necessary to believe there are plans for a NAU in order to promote national sovereignty.

Non-Interventionism? Seen as isolationism to most. Our stance has run off a butt load on this one. Better shut up, huh?

Nope, it's a main CFL plank, and Paul talks about it at every speech. In order to have constitutional government we will need to end foreign interventionism.

Patriot Act? Most believe it's for our own safety. Definitely Shut Up worthy, no?

Nope, it's a main CFL plank, and Paul talks about it at every speech. In order to have constitutional government we will need to end the patriot act.

Seriously, this is a campaign for LIBERTY.
Nothing has done more in our lifetime to threaten our liberties than the events that transpired after and because of 9/11.
IMHO getting to the truth about 9/11 is CRITICAL in preserving those liberties.

No, it's not. I agree that 9/11 has led to a loss of liberties, but it is only necessary to believe that we must restore these liberties, not necessary to believe in a particular theory about 9/11. There are many revolutionaries who do not agree with these theories (including Paul) yet they are fully capable of supporting the Liberty movement. 9/11 truth is a belief about a historic fact, it has nothing to do with the actions necessary to take this country back.

These beliefs are not part of the core CFL message, and Paul has stated that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, and that it would help the campaign if truthers would tone it down.

Here, perhaps this will help: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/mission/

If it's not there, it's not part of the core message.

Just think: what beliefs are necessary for people to hold in order for them to be effective allies in the restoration of liberty and constitutional government? Any other added side concerns serve only to hinder the message and reduce its appeal. These ideas may be worthy, but they should be promoted outside the CFL.

 

[BuddyRey]

I heard there was some kind of altercation between the asshole truthers and Tucker Carlson. They supposedly scared him off & he stopped being MC. What exactly happened?? I also heard the truthers were chanting "911 was an inside job" during the Ventura speech. Why wont the truthers just go away or shut the hell up? It seems they use this movement of small government, free markets & anti-war and turned it into a conspiracy theory camp. It really angers me that they are destroying the movement.

Man, you sure are quick to paint all 9/11 skeptics with a broad brush. I personally never lay my cards on the table about my take on the events at a Ron Paul-related event unless somebody else brings it up first and I see a general consensus (which I almost always do). I'm also very quick to point out that this is a free country and I don't hate or persecute anybody for not holding to my interpretation of reality. It'd be nice if everybody else could be as respectful of my views as I try to be of theirs. Please stop equating all 9/11 skeptics with the few rowdy folks who aren't very PR-savvy and end up drawing all of the media attention because of it.

 

[tremendoustie]

Man, you sure are quick to paint all 9/11 skeptics with a broad brush. I personally never lay my cards on the table about my take on the events at a Ron Paul-related event unless somebody else brings it up first and I see a general consensus (which I almost always do). I'm also very quick to point out that this is a free country and I don't hate or persecute anybody for not holding to my interpretation of reality. It'd be nice if everybody else could be as respectful of my views as I try to be with theirs. Please stop equating all 9/11 skeptics with the few rowdy folks who aren't very PR-savvy and end up drawing all of the media attention because of it.

And THIS is a 9/11 truther who gets it (as I know many do). Acting in a way that will unnecessarily turn people off to the movement works against all of our goals. When acting as a member of the CFL, we should all stick to the most vital issues which we all agree on, and are laid out in the mission statement. Everyone's pet issues deserve to be promoted, but not as a part of the CFL. When outsiders see us, they should see people standing for Freedom, and the founding principles of our Republic.

Let's get liberty and our constitution back, all else can (and must) follow.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Oh please, you're supporting the wrong person if you think Ron Paul supports 911 Truthers or that he is in any way associated with the Truther movement.

Go ahead & spew your ignorance. You're killing the Revolution with your 1st Amendment Rights. Learn when its appropriate to exercise your civil liberties. If you care anything about Ron Paul and the Revolution, you will not talk about 911 Truth.

Then why did RP invite two prominent "truthers" as guests?

Honestly, STFU will you please?

 

[Anti Federalist]

So I have a pad and paper handy. What else do we shut up about?
Federal Reserve? Very controversial. Most believe it's a government entity and should be left alone. Our stance has run off many people. Probably should shut up about it, right?
IRS? Very Very controversial. Most believe it is our duty to pay it. Our stance has run off many, many, many people. We should definitely SHUT UP about that one, right?
The New World Order? Off the controversy charts. FOR GOD'S SAKES, shut up about that one, right?
North American Union? See above.
Non-Interventionism? Seen as isolationism to most. Our stance has run off a butt load on this one. Better shut up, huh?
Patriot Act? Most believe it's for our own safety. Definitely Shut Up worthy, no?

Seriously, this is a campaign for LIBERTY.
Nothing has done more in our lifetime to threaten our liberties than the events that transpired after and because of 9/11.
IMHO getting to the truth about 9/11 is CRITICAL in preserving those liberties.









I'm HaddEnuff and I approve this message.

+1

I suppose we are to quietly mumble to ourselves in the corner.

Yeah, hoo boy, that'll scare the pants off the powers that be.

What a bunch of pansies. "Revolutionaries" my aching ass.