While no one is our movement condones death threats on anyone...the same does not hold true for Mr. Beck.
It was not that long ago that Glenn Beck openly called for Michael Moore's death and pontificated whether or not he should be the one to do it. Had only Ron Paul known that and challenged Beck on that it would have made for an interesting response. Don't worry too much about Ron's current polling numbers, Jimmy Carter and John Kerry were both polling at under 5% before the first primaries.

Peace Out
winnipegtruther

If he is was on our side is, "Glenn, for years, the media, yourself included, have tried to frame the questions of the 9/11 Truth Movement by citing only a few examples of some of the theories that have taken shape. Those theories only exist because those who should answer our questions about that day, refuse to do so. However, the legitimacy behind the claim that we need a new investigation into the attacks is solid." Nothing wrong with a statement like that during an election cycle. We made that man who he is, and he's turned his back on us. That's how I see it.

Thursday June 21, 2007
Ron Paul Talks About Government Run Investigations Such As the 9/11

* source = ?
-----------------------------------

More MP3 Audio Clips >

i"m supporting Dr. Ron Paul because as the chief executive, he can end the global resource war that we are providing the "muscle" for. There's a reason we consume 35% of the world's resources and its not because we're good looking.

Actually, at this point I am quite happy in the knowledge that if the evidence supports it -- and as we all know, it DOES -- Ron Paul as President will open a new investigation into 9/11. But for his presidential bid, he is simply doing too well to derail it with something as controversial as 9/11 truth (no matter how important an issue it may be). I say let's continue to do our job and leave him alone to do his.

Besides, he's due to appear face-to-face with Tim Russert on Meet the Press this Sunday, so he will likely have to address this issue again in some form or fashion. I expect he'll be ready this time!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

says it all. Take a look, he was very proud of himself.

He polls at up to 10% already, against all odds. He hasn't even started running his ad campaign yet. It's very early, and he's only gaining momentum. Realistically, all he has to do is win the Republican nomination and the whole game changes. As he says, his base is drawing on many who didn't vote last election. Those who are fed up with both parties.

In that interview, he does not make a strong statement about a desire to re-investigate 9/11. In fact, he states that he is not even LIHOP, blaming the failures on incompetence with a subsequent cover-up. But that's okay, in my mind. If he wins, he can reverse many of the police state policies that the Bush administration has enacted since 9/11. Stop the bleeding. And he won't get in the way of us if we put together a case for re-investigating 9/11. But he needs to win first. Any other candidate will continue down the path we've been heading. Ron Paul is the only one calling for real change. It doesn't mean he can promise everything during his campaign.

"I can't totally withdraw from Vietnam right now. If I did I would be branded as a communist appeaser. But I can do it after I'm re-elected - so we better make damn sure that I AM re-elected."

JFK said this to confidant Wayne Morse (or Kenneth O' Donnell, can't remeber which one} shortly before they gunned him down. Politicians sometimes have to keep their true opinions and plans to themselve's if they want to get elected.

does too. The election is still 11 months away.

What I laugh at is people who think they live in Ron Paul's head. They know all his thoughts. Because he's had integrity everywhere else, he MUST know 9/11 was an inside job!!!
Wrong. Ron Paul has never been on the side of 9/11 truth. The only shred of that is that he said a new investigation would be nice. That the investigations of these events are more or less coverups. The fact he takes the side of the commission report before the 9/11 truth movement so often means most likely what he meant by coverups is that they are covering their asses for the ineptness. Not necessarily some inside job.
He has not turned his back on us. He's just easy to talk to, even if your beliefs are rather different on a subject than what he believes.

This assuming the largest things from the smallest clues is really what gives us a bad name.
I don't want to be associated with it and I can see clear as day why people are so pissed off hearing stuff from 9/11 truth folks...a good lot of them ARE tinfoil hat type people.
Ron Paul is still low in the polls. The topic would NOT necessarily be propelled into the mainstream. There is no real likelihood for that to happen. Where do you get this? Simply because he knows how to raise money and get a lot of supporters?

Maybe the very reason he gets so many supporters and raises money so well is the fact he's taking on the government, without any sense of sounding conspiratorial at all.
Saying he's not going to win the election only helps secure him from not going to. I'm so sick to death of hearing this crap about "he doesn't have a chance". Of course he doesn't if people just write his chances off because of their static, narrow minded forecasting. Nobody seems to know what the hell it means to change likelihood and be dynamic. Obviously if you don't practice for the game, you're not likely to win the game. If more people support him, that makes him more likely to win.

Besides, what Ron Paul is hoping to change falls directly into the machinations for what caused and desired a 9/11. Even if he has no idea about 9/11 inside job, at least his other efforts will be for towards thwarting the chances of something similar happen again.

Of course, he's going to get assassinated isn't he?
Well, life sucks doesn't it? Why don't we just sit here, rot and die? why bother with anything?

============================================================================
"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
German philosophe

We don't need him to believe in 9/11 although I have heard him on the Alex Jones show get very close to it. I don't think Dr Paul is a truther, I think I am a truther and Dr Paul would move mountains to maintain my right to speak freely.

I'm not a "Ron Pauler", I am an American citizen and at this moment, RP is the best choice.

Perfection is the enemy of progress.

Firstly, again I say, Ron Paul doesn't need to agree with 9/11 truth in order for him to be for a new 9/11 investigation (which he is).

Secondly, he didn't come up with the idea of keeping the size of the federal government small for the benefit of the people -- that one belongs to the Founding Fathers! That being said, I'll go with the document that established this great nation or ours, The Constitution of the United States, in lieu of your paranoid fantasies about corporate takeovers and whatnot.

Besides, the idea in question is to remove the majority of existing federal power and transfer it to the states, that is to shift from cooperative federalism back to a confederation, or at the very least dual federalism, not abolish federal power altogether. I think the way things are going now, we're headed right back to what we seceded from in the first place; namely, the old British unitary system of government that most especially existed around 1776.

....just a tool to achieve it's ends: government spending that goes to the war-profiteering corporations. Business interests now own the government.

We need real government oversight that represents the American public, not "foxes guarding the henhouse".

While Ron Paul makes many good points about radically shrinking government spending on the war machine and reforming the corrupt money system; I haven't heard him address checking corporate power....

9/11 Truth ends the 9/11 Wars

I would like to know what his supporters think. There seems to be a divide with some folks thinking he knows but cant say yet and others who think he just hasn't done the ivestigative work. I mean in that case, it's not alot of work to be done really. Especially for someone bright like Dr. Paul. Just pointing out the whole anthrax affair hints strongly at a larger inside job. Ron Paul has said specifically that he doesn't think 9-11 was an inside job. He's wrong about the touchstone issue of our time. I do respect his integrity to his values, but this is a major stumbling block to calling yourself a constitutionalist. Treason has its own section under Article III. I say his supporters have a responsibility to question him and push him smartly and strongly towards confronting this obvious hypocrisy, whether knowing or unknowing, in his Constitutionalist campaign. If he doesn't have the overall ability to call out murderous treasonous coup-complicity in the White House and beyond, is he really qualified to restore and defend the Constitution? I disagree with the angle of some of his political thought (I say back our currency in renewable energy capability, and that strong national sovreignty and a strong role in the global community, i.e. UN and more are not at odds, but mutually constitutive) but if he had the intellectual and moral fortitude to speak the truth around 9-11 on CNN as a presidential candidate, I would strongly consider voting for him. As it is, he is an interesting addition to a presidential race that ultimately must be made transformative by We the People. Glen Beck's not added much at all to deepen the dire state of American discourse and his entire oeuvre isn't worth commenting on much beyond this sentence. We need leaders, not icons. Glen Beck's neither and Ron Paul's still trying to decide, which means all of us must step up now.

because you hit the nail right on the head! I too panicked for a moment there thinking Ron Paul was going to argue the point about 9/11 truth -- which I felt would have been a VERY bad idea. Sure, some of the words he used like "bizarre" and "preposterous" hurt a little bit, but I feel they were necessary. I actually was very relieved when he hardly had anything to say about the subject. The way you know he was playing possum is when he didn't even bother to say anything against Glen Beck who basically framed the 9/11 truth message as somehow dangerous (almost implying a desire to curtail the First Amendment) when the entirety of the interview up until then had been about Constitutional rights and liberties! Go figure!