Tucker Carlson & Truthers

[AndyWhite]

You anti-9/11 Truth people are like central planners. Stop acting like you have authority to tell other people what to believe, what to talk about, and what to do. Your anti-9/11 truth positions are a good illustration of the reason we don't have Liberty in the first place. We don't have Liberty because deep down, most people want to control and tell other people what to do. Me and most of my fellow Ron Paul supporters don't believe the governments version of events on 9/11. WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE ANYTHING THE GOVERNMENT SAYS? But those are our beliefs and we have the right and reason to have them. Why is it so outrageous that we don't all agree on everything? Apparently you guys would rather fight amongst your own friends and allies than fight for Liberty. Stop attacking fellow advocates of Liberty, that you may disagree with, and start attacking and criticizing the enemies of Liberty. United we are more powerful than divided.

 

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

Two questions.

1.) If White Supremacists start showing up at 9/11 Truth rallies waving signs about hating blacks and such, would 9/11 Truthers invite them to come back and continue practicing their freedom of speech?

2.) If you think that most people are receptive to 9/11 Truth, does that mean you believe the media repeatedly (and to this day) associated Ron Paul to the 9/11 Truth movement to get him more votes and support?

Thanks.

 

[tremendoustie]

You anti-9/11 Truth people are like central planners. Stop acting like you have authority to tell other people what to believe, what to talk about, and what to do. Your anti-9/11 truth positions are a good illustration of the reason we don't have Liberty in the first place. We don't have Liberty because deep down, most people want to control and tell other people what to do. Me and most of my fellow Ron Paul supporters don't believe the governments version of events on 9/11. WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE ANYTHING THE GOVERNMENT SAYS? But those are our beliefs and we have the right and reason to have them. Why is it so outrageous that we don't all agree on everything? Apparently you guys would rather fight amongst your own friends and allies than fight for Liberty. Stop attacking fellow advocates of Liberty, that you may disagree with, and start attacking and criticizing the enemies of Liberty. United we are more powerful than divided.

I would never want to forcibly remove your freedom to express your beliefs, please do not throw false accusations around. All I am saying is that those who have a love for freedom and the constitution would be wise to refrain from associating their other personal beliefs with the CFL, especially if those beliefs are divisive or controversial. It would be wise to do this in order to avoid turning off the many millions of people who might otherwise become involved, but are repelled by the personal belief they are espousing.

As I have said, I have personal beliefs that are controversial, which I do not promote alongside the CFL, because I love liberty and the constitution enough to not want to do anything to damage the movement. I find other venues to promote these beliefs.

 

[AndyWhite]

The point I was trying to make is that your spending time and energy attacking and telling your allies what to do. If someones beliefs don't suit you, don't associate with them, that's your choice. But don't then spend time and energy fighting your own allies. If you don't think 9/11 Truth should mix with the CFL thats great, because thats your opinion. Apparently other people believe associating 9/11 Truth with the CFL is good, and thats fine because that's their opinion. I personally will argue for and promote Liberty in the best way I see fit. And thats good. But I won't spend time and energy attacking those in the movement whose beliefs are different than mine.

For example, I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, so I do not consent to being governed by anybody. However, there are plenty of people in our movement who advocate a Republican form of government, and often call themselves Minarchists. I disagree with the Minarchists that we need a government at all, but I'm not going to spend my time attacking and criticizing them. Rather, I will work with them to advocate Liberty.

 

[brianewart]

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.

Seconded.

Ron Paul didn't run on a platform of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The rEVOLution was forward-looking, not backward-looking.

 

[tremendoustie]

The point I was trying to make is that your spending time and energy attacking and telling your allies what to do. If someones beliefs don't suit you, don't associate with them, that's your choice. But don't then spend time and energy fighting your own allies. If you don't think 9/11 Truth should mix with the CFL thats great, because thats your opinion. Apparently other people believe associating 9/11 Truth with the CFL is good, and thats fine because that's their opinion. I personally will argue for and promote Liberty in the best way I see fit. And thats good. But I won't spend time and energy attacking those in the movement whose beliefs are different than mine.

I am not trying to attack or fight anyone, I am only trying to persuade those who believe in Liberty and the Constitution, as I do, and who also have other controversial beliefs, as I do, that the best way to promote those personal beliefs is separately, lest the effort for Liberty and the Constitution be hindered. I am doing my best to work for the success of the liberty movement, and that certainly includes reasoning with compatriots regarding strategy.

For example, I am an Anarcho-Capitalist, so I do not consent to being governed by anybody. However, there are plenty of people in our movement who advocate a Republican form of government, and often call themselves Minarchists. I disagree with the Minarchists that we need a government at all, but I'm not going to spend my time attacking and criticizing them. Rather, I will work with them to advocate Liberty.

I support your right to those beliefs, and the rights of the minarchists, and the rights of the 9/11 truthers, and want to work with them to advocate Liberty as well. I imagine, however, that you realize holding a sign at a CFL event stating, "Anarchy NOW!" would be counterproductive, no? You realize that the CFL might be falsely associated (especially by our press and those with a vested interest) with the ideas of anarchy, and so turn off many who might have joined the effort, but disagree with or are even repelled by your stance. I am not trying to cast anyone out, only trying to convince them that our common interests for liberty, constitutional government, (and yes, their interest in a 9/11 investigation) are best served by pursuing a particular course of action.

 

[PatriotOne]

Two questions.

1.) If White Supremacists start showing up at 9/11 Truth rallies waving signs about hating blacks and such, would 9/11 Truthers invite them to come back and continue practicing their freedom of speech?

LOL. Comparing truthers to white supremists. Apples and oranges dude.

2.) If you think that most people are receptive to 9/11 Truth, does that mean you believe the media repeatedly (and to this day) associated Ron Paul to the 9/11 Truth movement to get him more votes and support?

No. Many brainwashed sheeple fell for it because they still think cavemen weilding boxcutters attacked America and Hussien had weapons of mass destruction. In fact, they will always fall for false flag operations and willingly give up their rights to protect them because they do not know the truth. Only the truth will set the sheeple free.

 

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

Two questions.
1.) If White Supremacists start showing up at 9/11 Truth rallies waving signs about hating blacks and such, would 9/11 Truthers invite them to come back and continue practicing their freedom of speech?

LOL. Comparing truthers to white supremists. Apples and oranges dude.

You're dodging the question, and I am not surprised. It makes a very good point. Interesting that you're not jumping for a chance to defend free speech at Truther events.

2.) If you think that most people are receptive to 9/11 Truth, does that mean you believe the media repeatedly (and to this day) associated Ron Paul to the 9/11 Truth movement to get him more votes and support?

No. Many brainwashed sheeple fell for it because they still think cavemen weilding boxcutters attacked America and Hussien had weapons of mass destruction. In fact, they will always fall for false flag operations and willingly give up their rights to protect them because they do not know the truth. Only the truth will set the sheeple free.

So you agree that the media was doing it to hurt Ron Paul and helping the media to do it more will just hurt Ron Paul more?

Once again, I'd like to point out that I'm not 'anti-Truther'. I just believe they are two separate movements, and I know there are 'truthers' who agree with that position. By seperate movements, I mean they assist Ron Paul but do not use him for their own gain.

 

[CasualApathy]

I just read this entire thread and I have a few observations:

1) Ron Paul sets a great example we should all follow. Ron Paul promotes his philosophy, but he doesn't tell people what to do or what to believe. He welcomes anyone who wants to support his beliefs as long as they don't expect him to support all of theirs.

2) Ron Paul does not believe in an inside job, but he also doesn't get offended by the idea of 9/11 truth, and in spite of continued MSM attacks he refuses to bow to their preassure and cut all ties to the truthers. Ron Paul is a man of principle so he won't accept the idea that he should avoid people simply because of their beliefs, even with the MSM and others telling him that it would be the advantageous thing to do.

3) Those that are the most harsh in their criticism of truthers keep referring to this exchange where Ron Paul was asked about the issue at the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k

Ron makes it clear that he doesn't endorce those views, but you forget to quote the rest of the exchange. Ron also clearly stresses that he won't tell his supporters what to do and that it is ridiculous that people expect him to. He is making the point that this is a non-issue, and that he won't be playing favorites amongst his supporters. Twisting this into "Ron Paul wants the truthers to go away because they are destroying the movement" as some of you have tried to do is just a blatant lie.

4) I see that pretty much all truthers and non-truthers alike who have posted here agree that running around screaming "9/11 was an inside job" at people is not a good way to promote Ron Paul, so I wonder about all the controversy here. The people doing that have only ever been a tiny minority of the truthers, and yet the "anti-truthers" here keep stubbornly arguing this issue as if every single truther was doing it.

We all agree on this issue so relax a little, okay?

5) I assume that everyone here knows how anti-establishment movements have been infiltrated and sabotaged by government agents in the past. There are plenty of mainstreem documentaries about it out there in case you don't. I wonder why it doesn't occur to you that the people doing these things that reflect so poorly on our movement might not be Ron Paul supporters at all. Or perhaps you'd care to argue that it is ridiculous to assume that infiltration is occurring in our movement as well?

In conclusion let me just suggest that we all follow Ron's example, and that we stop using this 200+ post thread to attack eachother and instead start talking about the issues that unite us.

 

[mbburch]

Really?

You sheeple will never learn even though your leader gives you numerous clues as to what he really thinks about 9/11. HE INVITED JESSE TO SPEAK AT THE RALLY WHILE KNOWING HIS VIEWS ABOUT 9/11 BEFOREHAND! HE REGURALY GOES ON ALEX JONES RADIO PROGRAM WHILE KNOWING MOST OF ALEX'S LISTENERS ARE 9/11 TRUTHERS!.

Please buy a clue!

The above quote gives us a glimpse into the irrational thought process of so-called "Truthers."

You're saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy AND Ron Paul actually knows this but is scared to talk about it! Without denying the possibility that this is the case, do you really think it's a likely scenario? Wouldn't a more probable explanation be that Dr. Paul simply does not buy into your crackpot 9/11 theories?

Paul has never been afraid to tell us what he believes; he does not need to insinuate or "drop clues." He has said many times that 9/11 was a result of our government's interventionalist foreign policy, not a conspiracy or "inside job." By advancing these alternative realities you distract from the real problem: failed leadership and incompetency of our elected leaders.

Ventura was invited to speak at CFL because he's an advocate of freedom and limited government, not for his views on 9/11.

 

[Defining Obscene]

The above quote gives us a glimpse into the irrational thought process of so-called "Truthers."

You're saying that 9/11 was a conspiracy AND Ron Paul actually knows this but is scared to talk about it! Without denying the possibility that this is the case, do you really think it's a likely scenario? Wouldn't a more probable explanation be that Dr. Paul simply does not buy into your crackpot 9/11 theories?

Paul has never been afraid to tell us what he believes; he does not need to insinuate or "drop clues." He has said many times that 9/11 was a result of our government's interventionalist foreign policy, not a conspiracy or "inside job." By advancing these alternative realities you distract from the real problem: failed leadership and incompetency of our elected leaders.

Ventura was invited to speak at CFL because he's an advocate of freedom and limited government, not for his views on 9/11.

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You think Ron Paul doesn't know what Alex Jones or Ventura stand for? If he was trying to "distance" himself from that movement, would he go on these people's shows and allow them to speak at his conventions? Our interventionist policy has much to do with our standing overseas, but 9/11 is painfully obvious that it should not grouped in with that. Ron Paul read the 9/11 commission report, yet hes open to a new investigation - you do the math. Instead of calling it a crackpot theory and insulting many of the people who want liberty and accountability, realize that the only alternative reality is that ignoring the elephant in the room is acceptable, especially for political reasons.

It really boggles me how people are complaining about MSM, yet they bitch and moan when some people speak out and allegedly "scare them away". They were ALWAYS scared to begin with. Its a grassroots campaign for a reason. If you really think we can just walk by what happened 7 years ago and hope it will never happen again, then I advise you look up Einstein's definition of "insanity".

As Rudy says, "only in America".

 

[syborius]

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.

You're the one that's ignorant. The majority including Ron Paul would like to see a new investigation, he has supported one from the start. You say that 911 is not as important as winning elections. 911 is equally important if not more so. The reason that Ron Paul ran for president was because of 911, the wars, and the attack on our liberties.

Maybe you need to pull your head out of your arse. As a true libertarian I am here for the principles that Ron Paul espouses, and I am here to protect unpopular speech, the only speech that needs to be protected. Like someone else said, click the X if the truther contingent in the movement bothers you so much and stop your whining.

 

[Printo]

Ron Paul is not a Truther!

Just because he wants a new investigation into 911, doesn't mean he thinks it was an inside job. He wants a new investigation so that we know where the blame is to be placed. Who in the government failed to do their job. Who's incompetence allowed this tragedy to happen? Why haven't these people been fired?

I dont have a problem with the Truther movement. I do have a problem with Truthers using the Ron Paul movement to push their own agenda. For the sake of the Revolution, keep your thoughts to yourself about 911 Truth when at Ron Paul events. 911 Truth is extremely unpopular & taboo to talk about & it scares off regular people & those on the fence looking at joining the movement. If this movement is to grow & become popular, all the conspiracy theory talks must be minimized because they hurt more than help what we are trying to do.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Printo's sig line:

Disbanding habeas corpus, the FCC, National ID cards, The Patriot Act. Who's really taking trying to take away your freedom??

Hint: its not the terrorists.

That alone is enough to "scare off" your "average" voter.

After watching the RNC it is clear to me why RP did not gain any "traction".

The GOP is now the War Party. RP's anti-war stance is what scared off the average republican.

Not the Fed, not 9/11 Truth, not throwing snowballs at Hannity.

It is that issue alone, I heard it over and over, "Well I like Ron Paul but we have to fight the terrorists."

So if you are going to gain any traction within the GOP (a futile effort) then you must convince the average GOP voter that the wars are lies, meant only to grow the health and power of the state.

I don't think that is possible, the War Party is a clear and present danger to the Republic, the faster it is killed off, the better off freedom will be.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think that is possible, the War Party is a clear and present danger to the Republic, the faster it is killed off, the better off freedom will be.

The only problem is that BOTH of the major parties are war parties. The Democratic Party is steeped in war; the Republican Party is just more of a newcomer. Both have become leftist, big government, organizations.

 

[constituent]

The only problem is that BOTH of the major parties are war parties. The Democratic Party is steeped in war; the Republican Party is just more of a newcomer. Both have become leftist, big government, organizations.

exactly. thank you.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

[emp. added.]

I just read this entire thread and I have a few observations:

1) Ron Paul sets a great example we should all follow. Ron Paul promotes his philosophy, but he doesn't tell people what to do or what to believe. He welcomes anyone who wants to support his beliefs as long as they don't expect him to support all of theirs.

2) Ron Paul does not believe in an inside job, but he also doesn't get offended by the idea of 9/11 truth, and in spite of continued MSM attacks he refuses to bow to their preassure and cut all ties to the truthers. Ron Paul is a man of principle so he won't accept the idea that he should avoid people simply because of their beliefs, even with the MSM and others telling him that it would be the advantageous thing to do.

3) Those that are the most harsh in their criticism of truthers keep referring to this exchange where Ron Paul was asked about the issue at the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGyhlNY0y1k

Ron makes it clear that he doesn't endorce those views, but you forget to quote the rest of the exchange. Ron also clearly stresses that he won't tell his supporters what to do and that it is ridiculous that people expect him to. He is making the point that this is a non-issue, and that he won't be playing favorites amongst his supporters. Twisting this into "Ron Paul wants the truthers to go away because they are destroying the movement" as some of you have tried to do is just a blatant lie.

4) I see that pretty much all truthers and non-truthers alike who have posted here agree that running around screaming "9/11 was an inside job" at people is not a good way to promote Ron Paul, so I wonder about all the controversy here. The people doing that have only ever been a tiny minority of the truthers, and yet the "anti-truthers" here keep stubbornly arguing this issue as if every single truther was doing it.

We all agree on this issue so relax a little, okay?

5) I assume that everyone here knows how anti-establishment movements have been infiltrated and sabotaged by government agents in the past. There are plenty of mainstreem documentaries about it out there in case you don't. I wonder why it doesn't occur to you that the people doing these things that reflect so poorly on our movement might not be Ron Paul supporters at all. Or perhaps you'd care to argue that it is ridiculous to assume that infiltration is occurring in our movement as well?

In conclusion let me just suggest that we all follow Ron's example, and that we stop using this 200+ post thread to attack eachother and instead start talking about the issues that unite us.

This!

The assaults on the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments are enough to get people on board without much controversy.

red-pill lite...

onward!

 

[Anti Federalist]

The only problem is that BOTH of the major parties are war parties. The Democratic Party is steeped in war; the Republican Party is just more of a newcomer. Both have become leftist, big government, organizations.

You won't get an argument from me about that.

The democrat party has done a good job of hiding that fact.

I think in the modern usage the democrats represent the "welfare" wing of the "Welfare/Warfare" state.

 

[mbburch]

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You think Ron Paul doesn't know what Alex Jones or Ventura stand for? If he was trying to "distance" himself from that movement, would he go on these people's shows and allow them to speak at his conventions? Our interventionist policy has much to do with our standing overseas, but 9/11 is painfully obvious that it should not grouped in with that. Ron Paul read the 9/11 commission report, yet hes open to a new investigation - you do the math. Instead of calling it a crackpot theory and insulting many of the people who want liberty and accountability, realize that the only alternative reality is that ignoring the elephant in the room is acceptable, especially for political reasons.

It really boggles me how people are complaining about MSM, yet they bitch and moan when some people speak out and allegedly "scare them away". They were ALWAYS scared to begin with. Its a grassroots campaign for a reason. If you really think we can just walk by what happened 7 years ago and hope it will never happen again, then I advise you look up Einstein's definition of "insanity".

As Rudy says, "only in America".

Being "open to a new investigation" does not mean that he thinks the attack was an inside job. There's a HUGE difference, and again, your willingness to connect dots that don't exist is further testament to what I'm talking about. You take an extremely unlikely scenario and then focus on a specific set of facts to suit that case.

Paul speaks his mind. If he really thinks 9/11 was planned & carried out by our government then he is LYING TO US. If you're right, he's part of the coverup because he knows what really happened but refuses to tell us!

I'm asking which is more likely in your mind:

1). Paul thinks 9/11 was an inside job and is lying to us, but he sometimes drops a subtle clue as to what he really believes.

2). Paul thinks 9/11 was carried out by Muslims who were pissed off due to 50 years of U.S. interventionalism and support of Israel.

 

[PatriotOne]

You're dodging the question, and I am not surprised. It makes a very good point. Interesting that you're not jumping for a chance to defend free speech at Truther events.

Ask a question that makes sense and perhaps you will get an answer.

So you agree that the media was doing it to hurt Ron Paul and helping the media to do it more will just hurt Ron Paul more?

And until the masses know the truth, the MSM will always be able to fool the people into voting for yet another corrupt NWO shill.

Once again, I'd like to point out that I'm not 'anti-Truther'. I just believe they are two separate movements, and I know there are 'truthers' who agree with that position. By seperate movements, I mean they assist Ron Paul but do not use him for their own gain.

Reality check......RP's movement is approximately 50% truthers, RP has benefited from them instead of the other way around. The "truth moverment" has gained nothing by supporting RP and yet we do it anyways.