New York Times Covers Ron Paul
jamartellxiv Sun, 07/22/2007 - 8:25pm
The article also mentions Ron Paul's exchange with Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and the video of the encounter that has been posted all over the internet...
- jamartellxiv's blog
- Login to post comments
Paul will never be president?
And there are WMD . . . thanks NYT!
NYTimes
The writer is clearly sympathetic to Ron Paul and his point of view, and gave free press to student scholars. He is on our side. I was expecting much more of a lashing from the NYTimes.
true, it wasnt the hatchet
true, it wasnt the hatchet job i was expecting but this line bothers me-“Even at the time it happened, I believe the information was fairly clear that Al Qaeda was involved,” he told me.
i know many here give Paul a pass on the 9/11 issue for the good of his campaign, but will we continue to give him a pass after he either wins or loses the presidency? Paul is clearly the best candidate out of the bunch but not even he deserves a pass on this issue. i for one expect better from a man who gets so many of the big issues right and seems to genuinely care about the constitution. will he endorse Kucinich's investigation into 9/11, limited as it is? this sounds like a great question for the Student Scholars to ask and would show me that maybe Paul does "get it" when it comes to 9/11. Paul should call for that new 9/11 investigation next time hes on national tv(instead of just in an online off the cuff interview), that would be something and would move the ball forward.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Ron Paul is the ONLY anti-NWO candidate
9/11 was an inside job, carried out by those who want to install a New World Order (with various goodies along the way).
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate speaking out against this great conspiracy.
If Kucinich or Gavel are also speaking out against the NWO, please correct me and provide info.
.
.
They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
Ron Paul explains position on 9/11 on FMNN's Pat Gorman Show - 6-21-07:
http://media.putfile.com/Ron-Paul-Explains-Position-on-911---6-21-07
NWO? too much Alex Jones
NWO? too much Alex Jones dude(and i like Alex Jones). this is a 9/11 board, im simply pointing out that Paul's position on 9/11 isnt good enough. and the term NWO is way too vague for most, i would be more specific(the term NWO means different things to different people,including people who frequently use the term and politicians who have used it in the past. what does NWO mean to you?). at least Kucinich is using his power as a congressman to look into some aspects of 9/11 come September(im not saying i trust Kucinich but we'll see). thats more than Paul is doing or has done about the cover-up of the century. correct me if im wrong.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Long before Alex Jones........
I've known about the NWO since Alex Jones was in diapers.
If you don't fight against the root of the problem, you'll only be chopping at branches. Yes, their drive for a NWO (one-world police state) has been stated too many times for it to be some "theory" or "vague" meaning.
If the ones who are behind this drive are not stopped, you can count on having numerous 9/11s in order to terrorize the world into accepting their goals.
We can debate back and forth over who is the best 9/11 candidate - and I can understand why some may not find Ron Paul FULLY in the 9/11 corner - but Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate trying to chop at the roots rather than just the branches, IMHO.
.
.
They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
Ron Paul explains position on 9/11 on FMNN's Pat Gorman Show - 6-21-07:
http://media.putfile.com/Ron-Paul-Explains-Position-on-911---6-21-07
Ron Paul is a physician, and
Ron Paul is a physician, and understands the difference between treating a symptom and treating the cause. He has OPENLY set his sights on the cause that exists in the US Government, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, The Personal Income Tax (which puts OUR money in the pockets of the bankers who own the FED), The Department of Education (which has lead to the dumbing down of the US population since its inception), amongst other things.
i agree with you and Mineta
i agree with you and Mineta Testimony about how Paul wants to strike at the root and dont disagree about the importance of that, but my question still remains-"i know many here give Paul a pass on the 9/11 issue for the good of his campaign, but will we continue to give him a pass after he either wins or loses the presidency?"
its no secret that i feel that based on history and the way our current system is set up that Paul has no chance of winning. i realize many people here disagree with me on that, and i can respect that. but i have to wonder how you all will react after the election if/when our man isnt in the White House. it can be argued that dismantling the 9/11 fraud is the quickest way to doing what you guys want, ABOLISHING the NWO, the Federal Reserve etc. it can be argued that short of getting a Ron Paul in the WHite House, exposing the 9/11 fraud is the easiest way to strike at that root. thats how i feel. im surprised that someone with the integrity of Ron Paul wouldnt help us do that. im holding my tounge as best i can out of respect for the people that think he has a chance of winning but if/when he doesnt i hope im not the only one prodding Paul to be more clear about 9/11. and this is the main argument-those that think he has a chance of winning think its ok for him to be silent about 9/11 for the greater good while those that think he has no shot want him to use his soapbox to call for a new investigation on national tv and be clearer. Ron Paul's soapbox, unless he wins the republican primaries, is as big as its going to get right now(actually on the MSNBC debates he had an even bigger one) and this is why it pains me to see 9/11 activists give him a pass instead of prod him to be clearer and louder about 9/11. if he loses that would make all of this a major wasted oppurtunity.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Well that's pretty much a
Well that's pretty much a loaded question don't you think? First you have assumed we have given him a "pass" on 9/11. He has said he will support a new investigation, you know that slogan that all those truthers have emblazen on their black t-shirts. So to say we have given him a pass is ridiculous. He supports a new investigation. That from a man of impeccable integrity and for the Constitution is all I need. What more do you want him to do Chris? Stand up and call for the arrest of Cheney? Do you think that would be enough? Ya know, without a real investigation, I would guess, historically, he would be destroyed politically since MSM is in the hands of those complicit in 9/11. So again, Ron Paul is for a new investigation, I'm cool with that. But it seems you want to attack Ron Paul for not jeopardizing his candidacy before the 1st vote is even cast. What's the matter? don't have faith that man of integrity and loyalty to the Constitution can win, so he must be used up for the sake of a blog post at 911blogger? Get Real.
If he losses, I am sure he will STILL be in support of a new investigation.
double
double
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
wow, you are extremely
wow, you are extremely sensitive tonight man, im sorry if i offended you by giving my opinion on his chances. jesus man, you really need to step back for a minute and calm down. i didnt attack you personally, why are you now attacking me imgstacke? get real? what the hell have i done to you to warrant that kind of shit? Paul will still be for an investigation but it wont mean nearly as much at that point. i dont need for him to call for the arrest of Cheney but pretending that the 9/11 Commission Report is anything but a massive cover-up(he told Rudy to read it and learn something)isnt good enough for this 9/11 activist(we are on a 9/11 board not a Paul board right?). again, im sorry you got so offended by my opinions on his chances and why we should utilize Paul and his campaign while we still can. and im serious, you need to either explain to me why you felt the need to go into full on attack mode with me or stop taking constructive criticism of Paul so fucking personally. or is this weird flash of anger at me about something else?
(please allow this comment Rep, the man just attacked me for no good reason. im done with it now, but you must know how it looks to allow him to walk all over me and not allow me to respond.)
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Chris and imgstacke
Take it over here, please:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1790
Chris and imgstacke
Take it over here, please:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1790
Ron Paul has his sights on the root of the problem
So really I don't mind so much that he holds his hand... Dissapointed that he reinforces the conventional wisdom by saying al-Qaeda was responsible, but the subject is almost too deep for people that haven't done some research to "get". But if he says he's gonna give the Federal Reserve the boot, he's got my vote. The Fed's owners are the real perps, anyway.
Yes, it would be lovely to see Cheney behind bars (not that Paul wouldn't support a true investigation if he were elected - I suspect he would...), but rather, I'd much rather see someone kick Cheney's bosses out of the country and cut off their cash-cow.