Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's Official Thread
- Thread starter Karma Kramer
- Start date
- Status
MadOdorMachine
No additional functions
I just had my first Ron Paul Meet-up today. We had about 30 people show up in Omaha Nebraska. It's pretty cool tlaking to other people in person about him. Most of our ideas are just getting out there holding up signs and meeting people at events like the College World Series, July 4th Parades, concerts, etc. etc. I encourage all Ron Paul supporters to join a meet-up group and start campaigning. A lot of people still haven't heard about him so we're trying to get the word out. If anyone has any ideas or suggestions on what can be done to help his campaign please reply or PM me.
MassiveAttack
Banned
Ron Paul on the Colbert Report last night:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ErBROBgERs
Brief but masterful. Another impressive showing.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7ErBROBgERs
Brief but masterful. Another impressive showing.
Karma Kramer
Banned
MassiveAttack said:
I wish Colbert would have given him more time to explain why he would get rid of all those departments.
MassiveAttack
Banned
Karma Kramer said:
Colbert looked like he was late for a flight. That entire segment was what? 3 minutes?
Karma Kramer
Banned
New Tucker Carlson Interview!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIzP8ONtkv8
Tucker is ****ing awesome. I love Tucker
<3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIzP8ONtkv8
Tucker is ****ing awesome. I love Tucker
<3
MassiveAttack
Banned
Karma Kramer said:
Holy f*cking shit... That is the first time I have ever heard a publicly elected American official say that the US should not be subsidizing Israel and should remain neutral. It's literally a taboo subject but Ron Paul went there.
And the smackdown on Giuliani at the end was simply classic. I love this guy.
Looks like Tucker is going to have him on every week as a regular guest.
Ron Paul is great, but sadly there is no way he will ever become the president. All the big corporations in the US hate him because when he becomes president, they'll make a lot less money. Ron Paul is the only real patriot of the presidential cadidates, but I don't think be gets much support 'behind the scenes'..
Not sure if the link to Ron Paul's extensive interview on some local news channel has been posted but I was just watching it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t632kLFaPO8&mode=related&search=
(thats the first part, there are 6 parts each about 7-9 minutes each where he goes extremelly in depth with his positions)
First off I once again want to give the man a lot of credit, not to many people are willing to be so honest with there beliefs and agenda today in politics.
With that said watching the second video and seeing his stances on thngs like health care, education and the enviorenment I would never be able to support him because we have some very basic differences in belief systems. namelly that the free market provides the universal yearning for freedom the best. That capitalism that is unregulated wont lead to the outcome of the few benefitting at the expense of the many or that the free market is the proper place to put all our faith in the common good or the proper use of the commons.
That enviorenmental concerns like global warming should be left to the marketplace to sort out despite the fact that sorting it out(if it even would before oil runs out) will no doubt take much longer then the expected time for global warming to reach that breaking point.
PS: His support of the VA healthcare system was kinda intresting and seeminglly at odds with his other stances on healthcare. Also his stance on NAFTA I am in almost complete agreement.
EDIT: also in video 4 the question is asked about how would he deal with something like Katrina when he advocates abolishing national response things like FEMA. I really thought he just scapegoated the question and said that big government is bad and pretty much just assumed that things could possiblly take care of themselves and never actually anwsered the question.
Does anyone have a better anwser to what he may have wanted to anwser? *im not trying to start a debate, just am pretty curious*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t632kLFaPO8&mode=related&search=
(thats the first part, there are 6 parts each about 7-9 minutes each where he goes extremelly in depth with his positions)
First off I once again want to give the man a lot of credit, not to many people are willing to be so honest with there beliefs and agenda today in politics.
With that said watching the second video and seeing his stances on thngs like health care, education and the enviorenment I would never be able to support him because we have some very basic differences in belief systems. namelly that the free market provides the universal yearning for freedom the best. That capitalism that is unregulated wont lead to the outcome of the few benefitting at the expense of the many or that the free market is the proper place to put all our faith in the common good or the proper use of the commons.
That enviorenmental concerns like global warming should be left to the marketplace to sort out despite the fact that sorting it out(if it even would before oil runs out) will no doubt take much longer then the expected time for global warming to reach that breaking point.
PS: His support of the VA healthcare system was kinda intresting and seeminglly at odds with his other stances on healthcare. Also his stance on NAFTA I am in almost complete agreement.
EDIT: also in video 4 the question is asked about how would he deal with something like Katrina when he advocates abolishing national response things like FEMA. I really thought he just scapegoated the question and said that big government is bad and pretty much just assumed that things could possiblly take care of themselves and never actually anwsered the question.
Does anyone have a better anwser to what he may have wanted to anwser? *im not trying to start a debate, just am pretty curious*
Lv99 Slacker
Member
Jonm1010 said:
Is your opposition to his stance on education primarily based on his desire to scrap the Department of Education?
Lv99 Slacker said:
Unless im confused isnt his stance to make education purely a private industry? If his hand raised on Colbert confirmed that and that video I mentioned seemed to say that, then yes, I disagree. I believe Jefferson when he said *paraphrasing* the greatest thing we could do for our country is to use the government to ensure that every American is guaranteed an education and that he was right and it directlly allowed us to be the most intelligent democracy for a long time and the most advanced.
Education should not be left to a system thats fundamental function is to maximize profits.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Jonm1010 said:
There is nothing that would prevent the states, as far as I know, from sending help to a state in need during a disaster. This would be most likely far more effective. And if the state refuses it then too bad. But at least it won't be like with Katrina where help was refused by an external third party which had authority over the situation.
So yes I believe Ron Paul is right on this issue. In the end what Ron Paul speaks of is less federal power, more power to the states (and hence to the people of the states). When it comes to global warming or anything else, again, the states could seek to work together without the authority of the federal government.
Plus, think about, all states are waiting for the federal government to act on global warming. If it was entirely up the to states themselves I am sure there would have been more steps taken already in energy conservation. After all, it can only benefit them.
MassiveAttack
Banned
Jonm1010 said:
Katrina is a perfect example of what Ron Paul is talking about. Have you seen New Orleans recently? It is a stunning reminder of why the Federal Government cannot be trusted to delegate funds, rebuild levees or even begin to rebuild a city. Your point is way off base.
imastalker co.
Banned
FEMA is a pitifully disgusting joke. i witnessed how terrible it was first hand when i was down south with the Red Cross.
it's really saddening that Ron Paul doesn't have much a of chance. but the fact that he keeps busting out in these polls, atleast gives me hope that the people of this country might finally be realizing what's going on here.
it's really saddening that Ron Paul doesn't have much a of chance. but the fact that he keeps busting out in these polls, atleast gives me hope that the people of this country might finally be realizing what's going on here.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Jonm1010 said:
Wait, how was the San Fransisco earthquake handled?
EDIT: And don't forget, Ron Paul said himself he couldn't bring all of his changes over night, and I don't think he would. He's not dumb.
MassiveAttack said:
I live their and follow it every day and the state is very much larglly to blame for a lot of problems and FEMA is a product of its shoveling into homeland security, its underfundedness and its shift from natural disater/ any disaster to primarilly terrorist concerns. The anwser is not to just live and let live its to ACTUALLY allocate the appropriate funds and quit with republican footdragging that has slowed and hampered progress in our state. Again then please anwser how the state would actually function better given what I pointed out.
Ether_Snake said:
my argument isnt its feasibillity to implment its the fact, coming from a Hurricane survivor who has experienced this first hand, that the only feasible way to remedy this is through a strong central coalition that is actually funded and cared about. The faults of Katrina are not because we have FEMA its because those in charge of its policy and those allocating funds for us(bush, republicans till recentlly) ****ed it up or basically tried to do as little as possible.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Jonm1010 said:
I think its common sense that a local community/state is more effective at caring and addressing issues in their state then the federal government. The problem with Katrina was that the local government depended too much on the federal government, so when the hurricane came and FEMA "surprisingly" wasn't prepared... the local government couldn't control the issue.
If however local states were under the impression that it is first their responsiblity to care and respond to natural disasters rather than report to FEMA or other federal departments, I think the states would be far more prepared and effective simply because they are the ones then liable.
AdmiralViscen
Banned
How's he doing in the polls these days?
Stoney Mason
Banned
AdmiralViscen said:
1 to 3 percent. Same as always.
MassiveAttack
Banned
imastalker co.
Banned
gotta love the media.
Burger
Member
Karma Kramer said:
This helps explain it a little better:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul366.html
Karma Kramer said:
monetary concerns say hi, and our state in NO WAY had the resources and even with a majority of states there still wouldnt be the resources not to mention the problems of several states trying to coordinate a disaster within only a couple of days even hours prior to landfall. The fact is is that FEMA is a necissary evil, this notion of states will do it better is a mere assumption that has no backing for something on the scale of Katrina. Plus as I stated prior there were plenty of state problems and our recoveries biggest problem has been NO funding, not FEMA. For all the horror stories pretty much everyone here admits that we would be a lot worse off without FEMA at this point, despite our anger at them.
Jonm1010 said:
I'm in agreement with Ron Paul with healthcare. His argument is that there is a medical monopoly through licensing that can cause something like a simple disease to result in:
1. Pay tons of money either directly or indirectly (insurance) to talk to a doctor. Of course, first you have to wait, see a nurse, and then wait again.
2. The doctor fills out a prescription.
3. You go to the pharmacy and again pay massive amounts of money for a drug that has been around for decades.
Whether or not you pay through cash, insurance, or taxes (universal healthcare) the system is still broken.
In a free market:
1. Nurse diagnoses a simple disease and sells cheap generic drug. Doctors focus on real disorders/diseases.
You may be confusing corporatism with the free market.
An example of the free market in prescription drugs would be Propecia/finasteride. Pay $70/month for a prescription or buy it for $25/month online from India. Capitalism results in lower prices, which is why poor people have TVs, computers, cell phones.
I pretty much paraphrased Paul's argument from another interview. But what he argues makes sense. I've lived through it. He's a medical doctor himself, so he's familiar with the system.
imastalker co.
Banned
i dunno about that. i was in the shit, and i saw what FEMA was up to. they didn't know how to hand out checks, they'd promise "packages" to people left and right, in which most cases, people wouldn't get them for weeks. sure, they contributed, but i'd say the people that got hooked up were only satisfied cause whatever they got, they got it for free.Jonm1010 said:
FEMA phone operators though, im sure they were happy getting their $18 an hour to fill out forms.
im not saying FEMA isn't needed, but it's just about worthless.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Jonm1010 said:
They didn't have the resources because they weren't the ones responsible to resolving natural disasters. The responsibility was in the hands of FEMA, so the state did not take it upon themselves to prepare for such issues. Had FEMA not existed and the government basically told the states to setup internal funding and staff to monitor, evaluate, and respond to natural disasters (including type 5 hurricanes) the local states (including all surrounding states) would have been far more prepared and they would have defiantly responded to such disasters much more effectively. A federal department run by a bunch of appointed bureaucrats can in no way understand and respond to a disaster as quickly as a local government run by people who are familiar with the location that needs aid.
Lv99 Slacker
Member
Karma Kramer said:
This reminds me of the reason I *thought* Ron Paul wants to get rid of The Department of Education: Who better to assess the performance and pinpoint the needs of students than teachers, parents and administrators - something that big government, one-shoe-fits all policies cannot do nearly as effectively, or at least, has proven incapable of? The prime example of this is the "No Child Left Behind Act".
I'm still looking into Ron Pauls views on public education. I have yet to come across any transcriptions on speeches he's given, or audio/video interviews (I have yet to watch those in-depth YouTube videos Jonm1010 linked) where he explicitly says that he is for the privatization of k-12 schools.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
If a locality has valuable assets to protect then this locality is obviously rich, and hence has the money to protect its assets.
If a locality has few valuable assets then it will need a small amount of money to protect its assets in the first place.
A locality's damage control capabilities are supposed to be directly linked to said locality's value. A state of high value has the money to protect itself and its people. A state of small value has less people and assets to protect to begin with, hence it can handle disasters with less money because there is less to protect to begin with.
That's how "free market" is supposed to balance things out. The lack of balance can only be a result of government interventionism in the economy or lack of government responsibility (like not protecting its borders, hence allowing the state's value to lower as more people come in the state while the state itself is not rising proportionally in value due to a lack of quality opportunities and offers, leading to an imbalance). If states were in charge of their own protection they would invest based on how much they can invest to begin with, and that is directly related to what their values are.
New Orleans could not lose more "value" than it actually had, and hence could not cost more than it could/should afford in repairs after a disaster. If a state has a high "maintenance bill" and yet doesn't bring in a lot of money then it means there is a lack of balance. That state should find either a way to have a value that is proportional to its maintenance bill (create new jobs, exploit natural resources, etc) or reduce its maintenance bill (which would mean having less people live there to begin with). If this balance cannot be achieved, and it could not be achieve only thanks to either government intervention in the economy or lack of government responsibility, then yes you will end up with a situation like in New Orleans where the maintenance bill will be disproportionate with the state's capacity to pay.
And yes this is in fact an issue a lot of western countries have had to deal with. For example in the US you have people who decide to live in areas constantly hit by tornadoes, but those people don't produce the necessary revenue to protect their assets in such conditions and therefore they never manage to capitalize on their revenues because it is always absorbed by a disaster that leads them to spend their potential profits. If staying there was profitable enough they would be able to protect their assets because it would be worth it to begin with. Yet they continue to waste money and hence potential profit due to irrationality. Multiply that by the thousands and you get an imbalance in the system. Then the state is hit by a natural disaster and it can't afford the bill.
If a locality has few valuable assets then it will need a small amount of money to protect its assets in the first place.
A locality's damage control capabilities are supposed to be directly linked to said locality's value. A state of high value has the money to protect itself and its people. A state of small value has less people and assets to protect to begin with, hence it can handle disasters with less money because there is less to protect to begin with.
That's how "free market" is supposed to balance things out. The lack of balance can only be a result of government interventionism in the economy or lack of government responsibility (like not protecting its borders, hence allowing the state's value to lower as more people come in the state while the state itself is not rising proportionally in value due to a lack of quality opportunities and offers, leading to an imbalance). If states were in charge of their own protection they would invest based on how much they can invest to begin with, and that is directly related to what their values are.
New Orleans could not lose more "value" than it actually had, and hence could not cost more than it could/should afford in repairs after a disaster. If a state has a high "maintenance bill" and yet doesn't bring in a lot of money then it means there is a lack of balance. That state should find either a way to have a value that is proportional to its maintenance bill (create new jobs, exploit natural resources, etc) or reduce its maintenance bill (which would mean having less people live there to begin with). If this balance cannot be achieved, and it could not be achieve only thanks to either government intervention in the economy or lack of government responsibility, then yes you will end up with a situation like in New Orleans where the maintenance bill will be disproportionate with the state's capacity to pay.
And yes this is in fact an issue a lot of western countries have had to deal with. For example in the US you have people who decide to live in areas constantly hit by tornadoes, but those people don't produce the necessary revenue to protect their assets in such conditions and therefore they never manage to capitalize on their revenues because it is always absorbed by a disaster that leads them to spend their potential profits. If staying there was profitable enough they would be able to protect their assets because it would be worth it to begin with. Yet they continue to waste money and hence potential profit due to irrationality. Multiply that by the thousands and you get an imbalance in the system. Then the state is hit by a natural disaster and it can't afford the bill.
Karma Kramer said:
I think you should turn into 870 in new orleans over the internet for a few days and then go read about how it has been the state who was given resources for over 30 years in essence saying "louisiana heres some funding and you all need to be responosible if things go to shit" the state failed for over 30 years. Fema was the blunder of a badly run national policy but the fact that the levees even broke is a prime example of the state NOT succeding where you claim they would. Remember the Army Corp of engineers is in essence completely run on a local level filled by local people and have ALWAYS eventually been allocated enough to have free reign to do the job right. But local politics and stuff screwed it up. Your idea of things would be better dealt with locally because of the immediateness to the problem is a nice hypothesis its just that new orleans goes to show that there are just as many problems locally as nationally and that there needs to be a balance on both ends.
Paul back in 1988. He owns a nanny stater. He has a lot more energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo
Lv99 Slacker
Member
teh_pwn said:
OH SNAP! :lol
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
HAHAHAHA the guy was so pissed off at being told the truth.
Ron PWNER Paul.
Ron PWNER Paul.
MassiveAttack
Banned
Madeleine Albright on May 12, 1996 discussing US sanctions on Iraq:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
Now, take a look at what happened in August, 1996:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatāwā_of_Osama_bin_Laden
And finally...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lK_QshS2EW8
Now, take a look at what happened in August, 1996:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatāwā_of_Osama_bin_Laden
And finally...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs
perfectchaos007
Member
I hope Ron Paul's internet support can turn into media support before the primarys roll around.
MassiveAttack
Banned
perfectchaos007 said:
At this point we can only hope that Ron Paul makes it to the next GOP debate. It's not until mid-July and he's not gaining in the polls. Some polls don't even list him as a candidate.
ErasureAcer
Banned
I'm with Ron Paul now(from Kucinich)...let me explain why:
I'm still a liberal. The fact of the matter is...the Democrats are Insane and the Republicans are Insane. While he may not be everything I believe in...he does make sense...and it right on many of the big issues. Freedom. Non-Intervention. Privacy. Etc...
I think Kucinich's ideals are good...but we should really fight these things on a state to state basis. I'm all for city states. We should be able to build our own communities. It will give people power and hope if they feel they can make a difference. More importance will be placed on the state instead of always looking for the Feds to fix things...they won't...they hardly ever have...all they are good for is taking your money and wasting it. Starting wars. Yes starting wars(we created all of them last century and this century too). Pissing off the world. Etc...
The Federal government has become Big Brother...they must be stopped...NOW. All the Democratic candidates besides Kucinich and Gravel are horrible.
One they are all owned by the corporations...nothing much of anything will change. Healthcare will still be run through insurance companies who won't provide healthcare to make more money...because they're bought. Wars will still be fought for more money and resources that don't belong to us...even Obama has no plans to end the war as he continues to fund it. Edwards and Clinton voted for it and still fund it(actually Edwards might have stopped). Edwards co-wrote the Patriot Act. I mean...these people are not leaders...yet the Democrats keep supporting them. It's insane. Supporting the same candidates and expecting different results from them. It will be more failure.
The Republicans are even more insane. Don't even get me started on them and TERROR TERROR TERROR! HATE HATE HATE. All while preaching Christianity when they don't believe in it whatsoever. They have no idea of the ideal of Jesus Christ. It's ridiculous. It's brainwashing, it's fear, it's death, it's money...all for their financial and political power.
Neither side can be trusted...and I now see why the founders wanted a small Federal government...power corrupts. But local politics...what we will have to resort to will open people's eyes...at least moreso. The brainwashing from media and entertainment will end...people will start to care...I hope. Then real reforms, such as those Kucinich proposes can be enacted at the state level. Not every state will make it...and we may fall into another civil war...but hopefully the leaders we do have in Washington can protect the people and lead by finding our common bonds and putting them into the Constitution...as maybe the Supreme Court can as well...equal rights and whatnot...still. That's my quick rundown of why I'm supporting Paul. I think everyone will be 10,000 times smarter once they have more open doors to smoking pot as well...the limits to the human mind are few and far between. We are living in an age of ignorance however. We need to learn how to love...and that can only happen through the process of thinking and caring about our fellow man. Putting the politics in people's hands at a local level will get people thinking...they will feel they have a voice. There's very few reasons not to support Ron Paul and lots of reasons, and big ones too, to support Ron Paul.
If you haven't yet watched www.zeitgeistmovie.com do so. It will blow your mind.
I have come up with a motto:
"You cannot find Love without Liberty.
Liberty without Love is Chaos.
Chaos will kill us all."
I'm still a liberal. The fact of the matter is...the Democrats are Insane and the Republicans are Insane. While he may not be everything I believe in...he does make sense...and it right on many of the big issues. Freedom. Non-Intervention. Privacy. Etc...
I think Kucinich's ideals are good...but we should really fight these things on a state to state basis. I'm all for city states. We should be able to build our own communities. It will give people power and hope if they feel they can make a difference. More importance will be placed on the state instead of always looking for the Feds to fix things...they won't...they hardly ever have...all they are good for is taking your money and wasting it. Starting wars. Yes starting wars(we created all of them last century and this century too). Pissing off the world. Etc...
The Federal government has become Big Brother...they must be stopped...NOW. All the Democratic candidates besides Kucinich and Gravel are horrible.
One they are all owned by the corporations...nothing much of anything will change. Healthcare will still be run through insurance companies who won't provide healthcare to make more money...because they're bought. Wars will still be fought for more money and resources that don't belong to us...even Obama has no plans to end the war as he continues to fund it. Edwards and Clinton voted for it and still fund it(actually Edwards might have stopped). Edwards co-wrote the Patriot Act. I mean...these people are not leaders...yet the Democrats keep supporting them. It's insane. Supporting the same candidates and expecting different results from them. It will be more failure.
The Republicans are even more insane. Don't even get me started on them and TERROR TERROR TERROR! HATE HATE HATE. All while preaching Christianity when they don't believe in it whatsoever. They have no idea of the ideal of Jesus Christ. It's ridiculous. It's brainwashing, it's fear, it's death, it's money...all for their financial and political power.
Neither side can be trusted...and I now see why the founders wanted a small Federal government...power corrupts. But local politics...what we will have to resort to will open people's eyes...at least moreso. The brainwashing from media and entertainment will end...people will start to care...I hope. Then real reforms, such as those Kucinich proposes can be enacted at the state level. Not every state will make it...and we may fall into another civil war...but hopefully the leaders we do have in Washington can protect the people and lead by finding our common bonds and putting them into the Constitution...as maybe the Supreme Court can as well...equal rights and whatnot...still. That's my quick rundown of why I'm supporting Paul. I think everyone will be 10,000 times smarter once they have more open doors to smoking pot as well...the limits to the human mind are few and far between. We are living in an age of ignorance however. We need to learn how to love...and that can only happen through the process of thinking and caring about our fellow man. Putting the politics in people's hands at a local level will get people thinking...they will feel they have a voice. There's very few reasons not to support Ron Paul and lots of reasons, and big ones too, to support Ron Paul.
If you haven't yet watched www.zeitgeistmovie.com do so. It will blow your mind.
I have come up with a motto:
"You cannot find Love without Liberty.
Liberty without Love is Chaos.
Chaos will kill us all."
ErasureAcer
Banned
WingM@n said:
You must tell your family, friends and even people you do not know about the man and convince them to vote for him.
The revolution will not be televised, yet the revolution is now.
As Gandhi said, you must be the change you want to see in the world. The change we must see in the world is that where the people are involved in politics and discussion...where we tune off the tv, and ipod every now and then and find moderation between entertainment and enlightenment. If you want Ron Paul...you must fight for him. You can't look to the government, media or corporations or anything else currently in power to help him...they despise everything he believes in. You must reach out and affect people...and then have those people affect people. We still have time. Primaries aren't for another 6-7 months.
If you believe in Ron Paul...you should get involved in your community, door-knock, explain who he is to people and why you support him and why they should. You should do this in early primary states as well. This is the only way the world will change. You must be the change...the people must be the change...not the government. We can take our country back my friend...you have to want to take it back.
MassiveAttack
Banned
ErasureAcer said:
Looks like you posted the wrong URL.
ErasureAcer
Banned
sorry, www.zeitgeistmovie.com
perryfarrell
Member
ErasureAcer said:
Isn't that the conspiratorial gobbledygook that was discussed in some other thread? I dunno, man, I don't think Ron Paul wants people like that on his side.
ErasureAcer
Banned
perryfarrell said:
What do you find conspirtatorial about the movie? Paul himself is against the N.A.U., Corporatism and war against other nations. I think he would support this movie.
The fact that there is a 9/11 cover-up just goes to show the government has something to hide...plus all the other evidence the movie gives. What is the government's response? How do they explain all the testimony from experts? For religion...that historical data is concrete fact...or do you have evidence against as well? Give me some proof that this movie is wrong and I will change my mind. There is too much evidence that our government did this. This movie outlines it clearly....it shows their motive...one world government. It shows that just like religion...the people will believe anything as long as you offer them fear. Do this or go to hell. Believe this or terrorists will kill us.
This movie is perfect. This movie will only help Ron Paul's cause...he would embrace it. It is the truth.
Edit-this is not meant to be a 9/11 conspiracy thread. I think this movie helps Ron Paul's cause..hence why it is posted. Keep all 9/11 talk away from here...or PM me. I did need to rebut his claim however...this helps Paul...doesn't hurt him.
Karma Kramer
Banned
Ron Paul Excluded in Iowa
June 19, 2007
June 19, 2007
- Status