Ventura is walking a tightrope.

[constituent]

That is interesting. It makes me wonder why the MSM never talks about it.

fail.

 

[winston_blade]

fail.

For what?

 

[constituent]

For what?

where would you like me to start?

 

[Carole]

He merely asked why we have not brought charges against OBL as we did after the first bomb event. The FBI says we have not enough evidence to bring charges!!!!

 

[winston_blade]

where would you like me to start?

I'm not a truther, man. In fact, my response of "That's interesting.....MSM sucks" was mainly so I didn't become involved in some sort of flame war with a truther. It's too late at night for something like that.

 

[ClayTrainor]

He merely asked why we have not brought charges against OBL as we did after the first bomb event. The FBI says we have not enough evidence to bring charges!!!!

One of the many valid questions, we need answers to.

And how about the funding, does no one want to investigate the ISI funding?

Ventura will have massive support if he runs, i dont doubt it. He knows how to play the media but, they may make serious efforts against him.

 

[jmdrake]

That is interesting. It makes me wonder why the MSM never talks about it.

Actually there was quite a bit of buzz in the MSM about the Scripps Howard poll when it first came out. Anyway, why isn't the MSM covering the Rally for the Republic? In terms of beating expectations it's kicking the RNC's butt.

 

[Flash]

I don't like Ventura that much, he looks too wild. I really was impressed by that Gary Johnson though!

 

[V4Vendetta]

9/11 was done by elements of the New World Order at very high ranking positions.

Google "Fabled Enemies"

 

[jmdrake]

He merely asked why we have not brought charges against OBL as we did after the first bomb event. The FBI says we have not enough evidence to bring charges!!!!

Thanks for posting that. I missed Ventura's speech. If that's all he said I wonder why the concern?

1) He's gone MUCH farther than that in other public appearances.
2) This is an undeniable statement of fact.
3) This is a question that even a "non truther" could raise. (You might raise it to point out the fact that the Bush administration hasn't seriously gone after OBL while launching a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.)

 

[Leroy_Jenkems]

I don't like Ventura that much, he looks too wild. I really was impressed by that Gary Johnson though!

You're going to have to come up with a better reason that, otherwise the statement you just made belongs more in Mike Huckabee's camp than Ron Paul's.

The dude was a Navy SEAL, and he shoots straight. I like him more than dislike him, to say the least.

 

[constituent]

I'm not a truther, man. In fact, my response of "That's interesting.....MSM sucks" was mainly so I didn't become involved in some sort of flame war with a truther.

thanks, you make my case well.

 

[Misesian]

I guess you could say that I'm small-t truther who really does not see what can become of promoting this issue, so I'd rather stick to the C4L mission statement. I mean seriously, isn't it also truth that in 1913, the Secretary of State Philander Knox stamped the 16th amendment as RATIFIED when it was in fact NOT ratified? The Tax truth movement hasn't gotten us anywhere.

I thought the goal in truth was to see the light of liberty at the end of the tunnel. Truth is relative to the individual. Haven't we learned anything from the "How to Sell Liberty" YouTubes?

Heck even the Federal Reserve stuff would be considered conspiratorial by most and ignored, if it weren't for the basic economic principles that underlie what the Fed does of increasing the supply of paper money. We're able to discuss these economic concepts of monetary inflation without sounding "crazy", we're able to talk about free markets without sound "crazy", we're able to talk about the governmental leash of the Constitution without sounding "crazy", and if we know history and some basic facts we can of coures talk about noninterventionist foreign policy without sound "crazy".

It just goes back to the basic premise that we should not make our agenda, the agenda of others we're trying to win over, and keeping everything in perspective with the mission statement of the C4L, becaus that is a DAMN good Constitution for us to follow as members of this extremely patriotic organization.

 

[acstichter]

Here is a legit scientific poll showing that 84% of Americans question the official story.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

Here is the Zogby poll that shows 42% thinking 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.911truth.org/images/ZogbyPoll2007.pdf

But hey, in the spirit of Ron Paul's politics let's be "conservative". The Scripps Howard poll shows that 33 percent of Americans think either the government was involved in 9/11, or knew that 9/11 was going to happen but purposefully didn't act because it wanted an excuse to go to war.

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Had all of those people gone for Ron Paul he would have won the Republican nomination hands down. Of course that's a mighty big "if". But it's still too big of a number to ignore.

Here's the bottom line. Ron Paul didn't embrace 9/11 and he didn't win. Bob Barr hasn't embraced 9/11 and he probably won't win either. The idea of someone running for public office who openly questions 9/11 hasn't been sufficiently tested. The claims that this is "political suicide" is nothing but untested conventional wisdom.

Regards,

John M. Drake

That Zogby poll shows that only 4.6% believe the govt carried out the 9/11 attacks. It also shows that 26.4% believe some people in gov't knew attacks would happen and did nothing to stop them. I might choose that option knowing that the FBI agent wrote warning memos about the ME men learning to fly and not land.

Nothing in that survey says 42% think 9/11 was an inside job. It shows only 4.6%.

 

[acstichter]

fail.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Ventura said the two parties and their puppets that run the system are destroying this nation.

Ventura said the 2nd Amendment exists for the sole purpose of rising up against the bastards.

Ventura said the "official" story of 9/11 is, essentially, bullshit.

And I heard the collective gasps from the "summer soldiers" and "sunshine patriots".

And I stood up in front of the TV and cheered!!!

 

[Pepsi]

It seems that 9/11 truth is to the liberty movement what abortion is to the conservatives--A LITMUS TEST (which way, I'm not quite sure), but if we are to have any kind of litmus tests, then I'm quite clear that this is NOT freedom and liberty.

What is needed is hard evidence that can stand up in court with out being struck down, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was in fact a inside job or not.

 

[freelance]

What is needed is hard evidence that can stand up in court with out being struck down, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was in fact a inside job or not.

When the people on the commission say that their hands were tied, how on earth would that be possible?

 

[Maltheus]

What is needed is hard evidence that can stand up in court with out being struck down, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was in fact a inside job or not.

Guys, it just doesn't matter at this point. It's in the past and although it may one day be widely accepted at truth that it was an inside job, it'll never come to light in a court of law. Even if Ron Paul was president. The Kennedy assassination is instructive here.

It's much easier to argue with people using the official story of 9/11. The cost of the response to 9/11 makes the actual event trivial by comparison. 3000 died on 9/11 and at least a million have died as part of our response. Not to mention the loss of liberties and the near complete destruction of the economy. We've got bigger problems now that need addressing and like it or not, 9/11 makes us look bad to most people.

That being said, we did provide a stark contrast to the other more scripted conventions out there and I felt good about that.

 

[LibertyInJeopardy]

All I've seen from 9/11 truth are things that raise questions, but the practice of accusations based on questions should be carefully considered before being added to the list of philosophies associated with our brand of republicanism. "9/11 was an inside job" is making a giant leap right past questions directly into assumption. You know who gets made to look like asses because of that? Not Bush/Cheney et al. You, me, and any movement tied to your accusations in that regard gets to wear the "ass"umption label. I would respect your position far greater if the goal was to raise questions and seek further evidence for eventual presentation as cause for a new investigation with a broad and unbiased analysis. If you are serious about it you have to treat it with more professionalism. Start gathering attorneys and organizing investigations, but make every effort to avoid assumption - especially when the accusations that leads to run the risk of tangling up a movement focused on broader philosophies and thus poisoning it with the distractions of defending itself from attacks having nothing to do with its positions.